Appeal 2007-1850
Application 10/939,879
However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
There is no dispute that Duan, like Appellants, discloses an aqueous
polymer dispersion for producing adhesives comprising the presently
claimed polyurethane and polychloroprene dispersions having mean particle
sizes within the claimed range. As recognized by the Examiner, Duan fails
to expressly disclose the inclusion of the claimed silicon dioxide dispersion.
However, Duan specifically teaches that thickening agents and fillers may be
added to the dispersion at any time during its production (see paragraph
bridging col. 10-11). Accordingly, since the Examiner correctly points out
that Raines discloses advantages for adding silicon dioxide to a dispersion of
polychloroprene, such as improved tensile strength and processing during
spray drying, we are satisfied that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to select silicon dioxide as the filler material taught
by Duan. We note that Duan also teaches that the dispersion may be applied
by spraying (col. 10, l. 64).
Appellants emphasize that the polyurethane dispersion of Duan is
used as a seed for the polymerization of the polychloroprene. However,
Appellants have not explained why this would have dissuaded one of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate silicon dioxide in the dispersion of
Duan during the formation of the polychloroprene, particularly since Duan
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013