Appeal 2007-1174
Application 11/001244
commensurate in scope with its claims cannot overcome the rejection of
those claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219
(CCPA 1980); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315-16, 203 USPQ 245, 256
(CCPA 1979). The examples listed in the Table on page 13 of the
Specification are limited to specific cyanoacrylates (e.g.,
ethylcyanoacrylate), specific copolymers of vinylidene chloride and
acrylonitrile (e.g., PVeneCAN), and other specific additives (e.g., PMM and
accelerators) in specific amounts, whereas the claims are not so limited.
Furthermore, Appellant has not explained why these examples are
considered to be the closest prior art. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
1179, 201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979). Finally, Appellant has not explained
why these results are considered “unexpected.” See Example 6 compared
with Example 13 in the Table on page 13 of the Specification, where the
addition of 3% silica reduces the peel strength of the adhesive composition
from 3.3 to 3.2 N/mm.
Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of
Appellant’s arguments and evidence, we determine that the preponderance
of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning
of § 103(a). Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-11 under
§ 103(a) over Nishino in view of Gleave, O’Connor, and Koga.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013