Ex Parte Musch et al - Page 2



                Appeal 2007-1850                                                                             
                Application 10/939,879                                                                       

                      1. An aqueous polymer dispersion comprising                                            
                a) at least one polyurethane dispersion having a mean particle size of                       
                      from 60 to 350 nm, and                                                                 
                b) at least one polychloroprene dispersion having a mean particle size of                    
                      from 60 to 300 nm, and                                                                 
                c) at least one aqueous silicon dioxide dispersion having a particle                         
                      diameter of the SiO2 particles of from 1 to 400 nm.                                    
                      The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of                       
                obviousness:                                                                                 
                Raines US 5,017,630 May 21, 1991                                                             
                Duan US 6,017,998 Jan. 25, 2000                                                              
                      Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an aqueous polymer                        
                dispersion comprising at least three components, namely, dispersions of                      
                polyurethane, polychloroprene, and silicon dioxide.  According to                            
                Appellants, the claimed polymer dispersion makes it “possible to produce                     
                adhesives which exhibit a high initial strength, wet strength, and stability to              
                heat after bonding” (Br. 3, first para.).                                                    
                      Appealed claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                        
                being unpatentable over Duan in view of Raines.                                              
                      Appellants have not set forth an argument that is reasonably specific                  
                to any particular claim on appeal.  Accordingly, all the appealed claims                     
                stand or fall together with claim 1.                                                         
                      We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for                          
                patentability, as well as the Specification data relied upon in support thereof.             
                                                     2                                                       



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013