Ex Parte Kesselmayer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2012

11242526 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2012)

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MARK A. KESSELMAYER and
JAMES L. RICHARDS
________________

Appeal 2011-001889
Application 11/242,526
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 and 11-18. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A reactive hot melt adhesive composition comprising:

(a) one or more polymeric diols;

(b) one or more multifunctional polyols with three or more hydroxy
functional groups;
Appeal 2011-001889
Application 11/242,526

2
(c) one or more polymers having a weight average molecular weight
between 30,000 and 100,000; and

(d) one or more polyisocyanates;

wherein the ratio of isocyanate groups to hydroxyl groups (NCO/OH) is
between 2.1 and 6.0 and wherein the amount of free isocyanate groups is
greater than 3.5 percent by weight, based on the total weight of the
composition.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3):
Lowe 3,380,967 Apr. 30, 1968
Dearlove 3,933,725 Jan. 20, 1976
Regan 5,290,853 Mar. 01, 1994
Krebs 6,465,104 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
Brinkman 2003/0106640 A1 Jun. 12, 2003

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a reactive hot melt
adhesive composition comprising polymeric diols, multifunctional polyols
with three or more hydroxy functional groups, polymers having an average
molecular weight within the recited range, and polyisocyanates. The ratio of
isocyanate groups to hydroxyl groups is between 2.1 and 6.0, and the
amount of free isocyanate groups is greater than 3.5 percent by weight of the
composition.
Claims 1 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krebs in view of Lowe, Dearlove and Brinkman. Claim
12 stands additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the stated combination of references further in view of
Regan.
Appeal 2011-001889
Application 11/242,526

3
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any particular claim
on appeal. Nor do Appellants present a separate, substantive argument
against the Examiner’s separate rejection of claim 12. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete 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 § 103 rejections for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily
for emphasis.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s factual determination that
Krebs, like Appellants, discloses a reactive hot melt adhesive composition
comprising a mixture of polymeric diols and triols, a polymer having a
preferred average molecular weight within the claimed range, and a
polyisocyanate. Appellants’ principal argument is that the applied
references do not teach or suggest the claimed amount of free isocyanate or
the appropriate isocyanate-hydroxyl ratio.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Brinkman
discloses a hot melt adhesive having the claimed amount of free isocyanate
groups and a ratio of isocyanate groups to hydroxyl groups within the
claimed range for improving creep resistance of the adhesive composition.
Appellants contend, however, that Brinkman is directed to a moisture-
reactive hot melt composition but not the claimed reactive hot melt
composition. As pointed out by the Examiner, however, Appellants’
Specification clearly discloses that the claimed invention comprises a
Appeal 2011-001889
Application 11/242,526

4
moisture-reactive hot-melt adhesive composition having improved creep
resistance, the very benefit disclosed by Brinkman (see Spec. 2, ll. 5-12 and
p. 3, ll. 15-16). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed
reactive hot melt adhesive composition includes such moisture-reactive
compositions. Also, Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to formulate a moisture-reactive hot melt adhesive composition of the
type disclosed by Krebs having the claimed ratio of isocyanate groups to
hydroxyl groups and amount of free isocyanate groups for the purpose of
increasing crosslinking and providing an improvement in the creep
resistance.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl