AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

2019005953 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/776,323 09/14/2015 Neal Carty 5753-US; AD2015002175 1594
81029 7590 08/03/2020
Avery Dennison Corporation
Wendy A. Choi
8080 Norton Parkway, 22D
Mentor, OH 44060
EXAMINER
PHAN, DOAN THI-THUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
matsgroup_patentdocket@averydennison.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NEAL CARTY
____________

Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, TAWEN CHANG, and
MICHAEL A. VALEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

VALEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 submits this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving
claims to an adhesive composition. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Avery Dennison Corporation, as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Herein, we refer to the Final Action
mailed August 10, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action mailed October 22,
2018 (“Advisory Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed January 14, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer mailed April 17, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 27–32, 35, 38–44, and 47–49 are on appeal and can be found
in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claim 27 is illustrative and
reads as follows:
27. An adhesive composition comprising:
an adhesive component, wherein the adhesive component
is a hot melt adhesive;
a vehicle;
a hydrophilic absorbent, wherein the hydrophilic
absorbent is water soluble; and
a crystallization inhibitor;
wherein at least one active agent is dissolved in the
vehicle and the crystallization inhibitor prior to addition to the
adhesive component; and
wherein the adhesive composition exhibits a Peel on
polyethylene value of at least 0.5 N/in and a Tack of at least 10
N/in.
Appeal Br., Claims App. A1.
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 27, 29, 30, 35, 38–41, and 47–49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Kulichikhin2 as evidenced by Lipman I;3
II. Claims 27–30, 38–44, and 47–49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Houze4 as evidenced by Lipman II;5
III. Claims 27–30, 35, 38–44, and 47–49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Houze as evidenced by Lipman II and further in
view of Kulichikhin; and

2 US 2003/0225356 A1, published December 4, 2003 (“Kulichikhin”).
3 US 6,583,220 B1, issued June 24, 2003 (“Lipman I”).
4 US 2004/0018241 A1, published January 29, 2004 (“Houze”).
5 US 6,710,100 B1, issued March 23, 2004 (“Lipman II”).
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

3
IV. Claims 27–32, 38–44, and 47–49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Houze as evidenced by Lipman II and further in
view of St. Clair.6
Appeal Br. 9.
Findings of Fact
FF1. Kulichikhin discloses “skin-contacting adhesive composition[s]” with
“improved initial tack, long-term adhesion, water uptake and translucency
characteristics” that “may be prepared by melt extrusion.” Kulichikhin
Abstr.; see also ¶ 129 (“The skin-contacting adhesives of the invention are
melt extrudable, and thus may be prepared using a simple blending and
extruding process.”).
FF2. Kulichikhin discloses adhesive compositions comprising a styrene-
based block copolymer or butyl rubber as a hydrophobic polymer and
cellulose derived polymers that are “preferably swellable or water-soluble
hydrophilic polymer[s]” such as hydroxypropylcellulose (HPC). Kulichikhin
¶¶ 12–13, 45, 52–53, 66–68, 189–197 (Ex. 6 and 7). For instance,
Kulichikhin Example 6 describes adhesive formulations comprising the
combination of a styrene-based block copolymer (Vector 4114, Vector 4111),
high MW HPC (GF, MF), and a low MW HPC (LF). Id. ¶ 189 (Formulations
9, 10, 12, and 13). Moreover, Kulichikhin Example 7 discloses compositions
comprising butyl rubber (BR 065), sodium carboxymethylcellulose (Na-
CMC), and a low MW hydroxypropylcellulose (JF, LF). Id. ¶ 193
(Formulations 14 and 16).

6 US 7,297,741 B2, issued November 20, 2007 (“St. Clair”).
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

4
FF3. Kulichikhin teaches that its “skin-contacting adhesive composition”
can “serve as a drug reservoir” by casting or extruding it onto a substrate,
e.g., a “backing layer or release liner,” to form a drug delivery device.
Kulichikhin ¶ 160. According to Kulichikhin, “[a]ny number of active agents
can be administered using these drug delivery devices of the invention.” Id. ¶
161. Kulichikhin teaches that, in addition to the active drug agent, the
adhesive composition “may also contain a carrier (e.g., a vehicle to solubilize
the active agent).” Id.
FF4. Kulichikhin further teaches that the cellulose derived polymers in its
compositions, such as HPC and hydroxypropylmethylcellullose, form “fibers
that serve as channels for fast moisture[] transportation from the wound/skin
to the depth of the [skin-contacting adhesive]” and that this is advantageous
because it “provides rapid moisture penetration and high water uptake during
use.” Kulichikhin ¶¶ 68–69, 72.
FF5. Lipman I describes adhesive compositions containing Vector 4111
and exhibiting a Reverse tack of at least 18.3 N/in and a Peel value of at least
8.2 N/in. Lipman I col. 15 (Tables 17 and 18).
FF6. Houze describes bioadhesive compositions comprising “an admixture
of at least one PVP [i.e., polyvinylpyrrolidone] polymer” and “at least one
bioadhesive” as well as a “pharmaceutically acceptable solvent suitable for
use with an active agent” and “an active agent incorporated directly in the
composition.” Houze Abstr. “The bioadhesive compositions further
comprise a backing material and a release liner.” Id. ¶ 34.
FF7. Houze discloses compositions comprising polyisobutylene as a
pressure-sensitive adhesive, a polysaccharide “suitable for prolonged
adherence to wet or moist surfaces” such as karaya gum, PVP, and a
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

5
solubilized active agent. Houze ¶¶ 11–12, 62–63, 395–396, 419; see also id.
¶ 438 (teaching that the agent may be “dissolved in a solvent, preferably
polyhydric alcohol, and then the resulting mixture is added to the other
bioadhesive components”). For instance, Examples 70 and 71 of Houze
describe adhesive formulations containing polyisobutylene (Vistannex
LMMS, Vistannex LMMH), karaya gum, PVP, a solvent (oleic acid), and an
active agent (Ketoprofen). Houze 27 (Exs. 70 and 71).
FF8. Lipman II describes adhesive compositions containing Vistannex
LMMH and exhibiting a Reverse tack of at least 18.8 N/in and a Peel value
of at least 4.2 N/in. Lipman II col. 9 (Tables 3 and 4).
FF9. The Specification identifies “polyisobutylene, butyl rubber” and
“[t]hermoplastic elastomers such as styrene-isoprene-styrene block
copolymers and styrene-ethylene/propylene-styrene block copolymers” as
exemplary hot melt adhesives for use in the recited adhesive compositions.
Spec. ¶¶ 21–22, 60, 66.
FF10. The Specification identifies “hydroxypropyl cellulose” and
“polyvinylpyrrolidone” as exemplary crystallization inhibitors for use in the
recited adhesive compositions. Spec. ¶¶ 40–41.
FF11. The Specification identifies “sodium carboxymethyl cellulose” and
“karaya gum starches” as “suitable water soluble polymers” for use as
absorbents in the recited adhesive compositions. Spec. ¶ 27. The
Specification further explains that HPC may be used “instead of, or in
addition” to carboxymethyl cellulose as an absorbent. Id. ¶ 36.
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

6
Analysis
I. 102 Rejection: Kulichikhin
Appellant does not argue any claim separately from independent
claim 27. See Appeal Br. 10–11. Accordingly, we select claim 27 as
representative for our analysis and the other rejected claims stand or fall
with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). The issue for this rejection is:
Does the preponderance of evidence of record support Examiner’s
determination that Kulichikhin anticipates the adhesive composition of claim
27?
Examiner finds that Kulichikhin discloses “a skin-contacting adhesive
composition comprising” the combination of an adhesive component,
absorbent, and crystallization inhibitor, as recited in claim 27. Final Act. 4
(citing, inter alia, Kulichikhin Examples 6 and 7). Examiner further
determines that Kulichikhin teaches that these compositions “contain[] an
active ingredient and . . . a vehicle to solubilize the active agent,” as recited
in claim 27. Id. (citing Kulichikhin ¶ 161). Examiner determines that the
limitation reciting “that the active agent is ‘dissolved’ in the vehicle and the
crystallization inhibitor ‘prior to the addition’ to the adhesive component . . .
is a recitation of [a] product-by-process [step]” and that Appellant’s “claim
is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure
implied by the steps,” which Kulichikhin discloses. Id. at 4–5 (citing MPEP
§ 2113). Finally, Examiner determines that the recited Peel and Tack values
are “inherent in the adhesive composition of Kulichikhin because the
structural limitations,” i.e., compositions combining each of the ingredients
recited in claim 27, are “taught by Kulichikhin.” Id. at 5. Examiner notes
that this inherency finding is further supported by Lipman I, which shows
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

7
“an adhesive composition containing styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) block
copolymer” with Peel and Tack values exceeding the recited thresholds.7 Id.
Based on the record before us, we determine the preponderance of the
evidence supports Examiner’s determination that claim 27 is anticipated by
Kulichikhin. See FF1–FF5, FF9–FF11. We agree with, and adopt,
Examiner’s findings and reasoning in support of the rejection of claim 27, as
well as the related rejection of claims 29, 30, 35, 38–41, and 47–49, as set
forth in the Final Action, Advisory Action and Answer. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, which we address below.
Appellant argues that Kulichikhin does not anticipate claim 27
because it “describes a two-phase system where the hydrophobic phase
comprises a polymer, plasticizer, and resin and the hydrophilic phase
comprises low MW cellulose derived polymers, high MW cellulose derived
polymers, and reinforcing clay particles.” Appeal Br. 10. According to
Appellant, “Kulichikhin requires these separate phases” and this fact
distinguishes “the Current Application where the phases are no longer
separate but ‘nevertheless homogenously blended into a single cohesive
mass.’” Id. (quoting Spec. ¶56).
We are not persuaded. Appellant has not identified, nor is there,
anything in the text of claim 27 that expressly limits the recited composition
to a single phase. And the only evidence Appellant cites for its narrow
interpretation of claim 27 actually supports the opposite position, i.e., that

7 Examiner relies on Lipman I and Lipman II solely as evidence regarding
certain physical properties of polymers disclosed in Kulichikhin and Houze.
See Final Act. 4–5, 7. Each of the anticipation rejections is based on the
adhesive compositions disclosed in a single reference, i.e., Kulichikhin for
the first rejection and Houze for the second. Id.
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

8
the claimed invention is not limited to single phase compositions. See Spec.
¶ 56 (noting that it is only “[i]n certain versions” that the ingredients are
“homogenously blended into a single cohesive mass” and stating “[i]t will
also be understood that the present subject matter is not limited to multi-
phase compositions. Instead, the subject matter includes single or unitary
phase compositions or systems.”). Accordingly, the fact that Kulichikhin
describes two-phase compositions does not distinguish Kulichikhin’s
compositions from those recited in claim 27.
Appellant next argues that Kulichikhin “does not describe the use of
the Current Application’s crystallization inhibitor.” Appeal Br. 11.
According to Appellant, “[a]though Examiner provided that
hydroxypropylcellulose (HPC) met the qualifications of a crystallization
inhibitor, HPC by its very nature is a crystalline material.” Id. Therefore,
urges Appellant, “[s]ince the HPC of Kulichikhin is itself crystalline, it
cannot be said that Kulichikhin contains a crystallization inhibitor.” Id.
We are not persuaded because the Specification expressly identifies
HPC as an exemplary crystallization inhibitor for use in the recited adhesive
compositions. FF9. Appellant’s argument that the recited “crystallization
inhibitor” cannot itself be in crystalline form is not supported by the text of
claim 27, the Specification, nor any other evidence of record. See In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that arguments and
conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight).
Thus, we determine that, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim
27 encompasses compositions in which the recited “crystallization inhibitor”
is HPC whether that HPC be in crystalline or amorphous form.
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

9
Appellant does not dispute that Kulichikhin discloses adhesive
compositions comprising various HPC polymers in combination with the
other recited components of claim 27. FF2–FF3. Thus, we agree with
Examiner that those compositions anticipate the adhesive composition of
claim 27 and, therefore, affirm the rejection. We affirm the rejection of
claims 29, 30, 35, 38–41, and 47–49 for the same reasons.
II. 102 Rejection: Houze
Appellant does not argue any claim separately from independent
claim 27. See Appeal Br. 12–13. Accordingly, we again select claim 27 as
representative and the other rejected claims stand or fall with that claim. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). The issue for this rejection is: Does the
preponderance of evidence of record support Examiner’s determination that
Houze anticipates the adhesive composition of claim 27?
Examiner finds that Houze discloses “an adhesive composition
comprising” the combination of an adhesive component, absorbent,
crystallization inhibitor, and active agent, as recited in claim 27. Final Act.
7 (citing, inter alia, Houze Examples 70–72). Examiner further finds that
Houze teaches “the active ingredient is dissolved in the solvent such as
polyhydric alcohol and PVP [i.e., a “vehicle” and “crystallization inhibitor”
as recited in claim 27] before adding to the adhesive component.” Id.
Examiner determines that the recited Peel and Tack values are “inherent in
the adhesive composition . . . taught by Houze.” Id. Examiner notes that
this inherency finding is further supported by Lipman II, which shows “an
adhesive composition containing polyisobutylene (Vistanex LMMH)” with
Peel and Tack values exceeding the recited thresholds. Id.
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

10
Based on the record before us, we determine the preponderance of the
evidence supports Examiner’s determination that claim 27 is anticipated by
Houze. See FF6–FF11. We agree with, and adopt, Examiner’s findings and
reasoning in support of the rejection of claim 27, as well as the related
rejection of claims 28–30, 38–44, and 47–49, as set forth in the Final Action,
Advisory Action and Answer. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments, which we address below.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the composition
of Houze is very specific and must contain at least one of 3 particular active
agents . . . whereas the Current Application does not.” Appeal Br. 12. The
fact that claim 27 encompasses a broader scope of active agents than
Appellant contends Houze discloses does not distinguish Appellant’s claims.
Claim 27 is not limited to any particular active agent. Thus, it encompasses
the particular agents that Appellant concedes are disclosed as active agents
in Houze’s adhesive compositions.
We are likewise unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Houze
does not disclose the “hot melt adhesive” limitation recited in claim 27.
Claim 27 requires that the recited “adhesive component” be a “hot melt
adhesive.” Appeal Br., Claims App. A1. The Specification identifies
“polyisobutylene” as one example of such a hot melt adhesive. FF9. Houze
discloses compositions containing a polyisobutylene adhesive. FF6. Thus,
we agree with Examiner that Houze discloses compositions comprising a
“hot melt adhesive,” as recited in claim 27.
Houze’s teaching that “[p]referably” its “mixture is cast at ambient
temperature” does not distinguish the composition in claim 27. See Appeal
Br. 12 (quoting Houze ¶ 430). That teaching merely describes a preferred
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

11
process condition for making Houze’s compositions; it does not bear on
whether the polyisobutylene in those compositions is a “hot melt adhesive,”
as recited in claim 27. Indeed, as Examiner points out, Lipman II evidences
that the same polyisobutylene disclosed in Houze (Vistanex LMMH) may
also be blended at higher temperatures. See, e.g., Lipman II 9:14–50 (Exs.
3–5), 12:31–32.
Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “Peel
on polyethylene” threshold recited in claim 27 is “a significant and
unexpected result” compared to the bioadhesive strength values taught in
Houze. Appeal Br. 12–13. As an initial matter, evidence of unexpected
results cannot overcome an anticipation rejection. In re Malagari, 499 F.2d
1297, 1302 (CCPA 1974); see also Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp.,
543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining “obviousness requires
analysis of secondary considerations of nonobviousness, while secondary
considerations are not an element of a claim of anticipation.”). Thus,
Appellant’s attempt to show that Houze teaches a lower value than the Peel
value in claim 27 does not overcome Examiner’s anticipation rejection,
which is premised on Houze’s disclosure of adhesive compositions with the
same structure as the compositions recited in claim 27.
Moreover, while evidence of unexpected results would be relevant to
Examiner’s obviousness rejections, Appellant has not sufficiently shown any
unexpected results here. In particular, Appellant has not established how, if
at all, the 1000 dyne per square centimeter strength value reported in Houze
relates to the 0.5 N/in “Peel on polyethylene” threshold recited in claim 27.
Houze observes that “[b]ioadhesion is often a difficult phenomenon to
measure” and identifies particular tests used to measure the adhesive force of
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

12
its compositions. Houze ¶ 61. Appellant, however, offers no evidence that
the tests used to provide Houze’s measurement are the same or otherwise
comparable to the “Peel on polyethylene” measurement recited in claim 27.
In addition, the calculations in the Appeal Brief ignore the fact that Houze’s
values are measured in force per square centimeter. This distinction, which
Examiner has repeatedly pointed out,8 but that Appellant makes no attempt
to reconcile, further underscores that Houze’s values are apparently the
result of a different measurement than the one recited in Appellant’s claims.
Because Appellant has not shown how, if at all, these measurements relate to
each other, Appellant has failed to show the claimed Peel on polyethylene
threshold is, in fact, a significant and unexpected result over the prior art.
See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) (“[T]he burden of
showing unexpected results rests on he who asserts them.”).
For all of these reasons, we agree with Examiner that claim 27 is
anticipated by Houze and, therefore, affirm the rejection. We affirm the
rejection of claims 28–30, 38–44, and 47–49 for the same reasons.
III. 103 Rejection: Houze and Kulichikhin
The issue for this rejection is: Does the preponderance of evidence of
record support Examiner’s conclusion that claims 27–30, 35, 38–44, and 47–
49 are obvious over the cited references?
Examiner relies on the same findings supporting the rejection that
claims 27–30, 38–44, and 47–49 are anticipated by Houze to conclude those
claims would also have been obvious over Houze and Kulichikhin. Final
Act. 11. Regarding the additional requirements of claim 35, Examiner

8 See Final Act. 9; Advisory Act. 5; Ans. 19.
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

13
acknowledges that “Houze does not teach [that] the hydrophilic absorbent is
particularly carboxymethylcellulose,” as recited in that claim. Id. However,
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to add
carboxymethylcellulose to Houze’s bioadhesive compositions. Id. at 12.
According to Examiner,
[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
do so because Kulichikhin provide[s] the guidance to select
carboxymethylcellulose, as it provide[s] improved moisture
transportation from the wound/skin to the depth of the skin-
contacting adhesive (Kulichikhin: [0066]-[0072]). . . . Thus,
an[] ordinary artisan provided the guidance from the cited prior
art[] would look to modify[] the Houze adhesive composition to
contain carboxymethylcellulose so as to improve moisture
transportation from the wound/skin to the depth of skin-
contacting adhesive per Kulichikhin.
Id. Examiner further determines there would have been a reasonable
expectation that carboxymethylcellulose could be successfully used as an
absorbent in Houze’s compositions because Houze itself lists
carboxymethylcellulose as a material for use in such compositions. Id.
(citing Houze ¶ 62).
Based on the record before us, we determine the preponderance of the
evidence supports Examiner’s determination that claims 27–30, 35, 38–44,
and 47–49 would have been obvious over the articulated combination of
Houze, as evidenced by Lipman II, and Kulichikhin. We agree with, and
adopt, Examiner’s findings and reasoning in support of that rejection as set
forth in the Final Action, Advisory Action and Answer. See also FF1–FF11.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, which we address below.
Appellant argues that “what is described in the Current Application
may be differentiated from Houze, Lipman [II] and Kulichikhin” based on
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

14
the same distinctions Appellant attempts to draw to distinguish its claims for
Examiner’s anticipation rejections. See Appeal Br. 14–15. As explained
above, we do not agree that Appellant’s claims are distinguished from
compositions in Houze and Kulichikhin on those bases and are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding the same.
Appellant additionally contends, “Examiner has failed to provide how
the references expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the
motivation to combine them.” Id. at 15. We disagree. Examiner has
identified teachings in the cited references for each of the recited limitations
(see Final Act. 4–5, 7–8, 11–12) and articulated a rationale for combining
them (id. at 12). Examiner’s findings and reasoning in this regard are
sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of obviousness. Appellant in its
Appeal Brief offers no particular rebuttal to Examiner’s articulated
motivation for combining the references. See Final Act. 15 (failing to
address Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to add
carboxymethylcellulose to improve moisture transportation). Accordingly,
we affirm Examiner’s rejection of claims 27–30, 35, 38–44, and 47–49 as
obvious over Houze, Lipman II, and Kulichikhin.
IV. 103 Rejection: Houze and St. Clair
The issue for this rejection is: Does the preponderance of evidence of
record support Examiner’s conclusion that claims 27–32, 38–44, and 47–49
are obvious over the cited references?
Examiner relies on the same findings supporting the rejection that
claims 27–30, 38–44, and 47–49 are anticipated by Houze to conclude those
claims would also have been obvious over Houze and St. Clair. Final Act.
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

15
13. Regarding the additional requirements of claims 31 and 32, Examiner
finds:
St. Clair teaches pressure sensitive adhesive formulations
comprising a mixture of high molecular weight linear and/or
radial block copolymer component and a diblock copolymer
component such as a high molecular weight styrene-butadiene-
styrene couple block copolymer . . . wherein the adhesive
formulation has a tack of at least 207 oz/in (equivalent to ~57.5
N/in).
Id. Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify the
adhesive composition of Houze by optimizing the adhesive component . . .
to have high tack by incorporating block copolymers comprising a mixture
of high molecular weight linear and/or radial block copolymer component
and a diblock copolymer component,” as taught in St. Clair. Id. Examiner
finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so
because St. Clair teaches that this “provides pressure sensitive adhesives that
have aggressive tack, and good peel and shear strength, as well as, excellent
high temperature strength.” Id. Examiner further determines there would
have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification
because “the pressure sensitive adhesive of St. Clair is within the scope of
the suitable adhesives [e.g., styrene/butadiene, polyisoprene and styrene
block copolymers]” described in Houze. Id. at 13–14.
Based on the record before us, we determine the preponderance of the
evidence supports Examiner’s conclusion that claims 27–32, 38–44, and 47–
49 would have been obvious over the articulated combination of Houze, as
evidenced by Lipman II, and St. Clair. We agree with, and adopt,
Examiner’s findings and reasoning in support of that rejection as set forth in
Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

16
the Final Action, Advisory Action and Answer. See also FF6–FF11. We
are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, which we address below.
Appellant’s argument that “[a]s provided above, neither Houze nor
Lipman [II] provide the motivation needed to support a § 103 rejection” in
view of St. Clair is not persuasive. Appeal Br. 16. The motivation for
combining Houze and St. Clair as articulated in the rejection is premised on
teachings in St. Clair. Final Act. 13. Appellant does not address those
teachings, nor offer any particular argument against Examiner’s motivation
for combining the references in its Appeal Brief. To the extent Appellant
relies on the same arguments it makes to distinguish Houze within the
context of Examiner’s anticipation rejection, we are not persuaded by those
arguments for the reasons explained above. Accordingly, we affirm.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
27, 29, 30,
35, 38–41,
47–49
102 Kulichikhin 27, 29, 30,
35, 38–41,
47–49

27–30, 38–
44, 47–49
102 Houze 27–30, 38–
44, 47–49

27–30, 35,
38–44, 47–
49
103 Houze, Lipman II,
Kulichikhin
27–30, 35,
38–44, 47–
49

27–32, 38–
44, 47–49
103 Houze, Lipman II,
St. Clair
27–32, 38–
44, 47–49

Overall
Outcome
27–32, 35,
38–44, 47–
49

Appeal 2019-005953
Application 14/776,323

17
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