Appeal 2007-1174
Application 11/001244
those set forth below. We also determine that the Examiner has established
a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which
case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments and
evidence. Therefore, we AFFIRM the rejection based on § 103(a)
essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set
forth below. Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner to reject the claims
on appeal is AFFIRMED.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, first paragraph
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) some of the claims require that the “fixturing time of the
cyanoacrylate composition between two substrates is less than
about 70 seconds” (see claim 1 on appeal reproduced above);
(2) original claim 13 provides a literal basis for this requirement in
claim 1 on appeal (Br. 9);
(3) examples of substrates bonded with Appellant’s adhesive
composition include EPDM rubber and steel (Specification 11:16-
19; 12:11-19; 13, Table 1; and 14:1-7; Br. 6; and Answer 3, 5-6);
and
(4) O’Connor discloses cyanoacrylate adhesive compositions with
various fixture times for different substrates (col. 5, Table 2).
Whether a specification is enabling is a legal conclusion based upon
several underlying factual inquiries. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 735-37,
8 USPQ2d 1400, 1400-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The initial burden of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013