Appeal No. 2002-1107 Page 5
Application No. 09/662,540
unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a
different process.”).
Appellants argue that Koleske does not teach use of a
transfer agent and surfactant being required and use of an amount
of epoxy functional monomer, transfer agent and surfactant as
appellants’ claim. However, Koleske teach and exemplify a
coating that includes epoxy monomer, surfactant, photo initiator
and polyol (transfer agent2) in admixture. The amounts of
surfactant, transfer agent and photo initiator fall squarely
within the claimed amounts for those components in Example 36 of
Koleske. Moreover, the epoxide “monomer” in Example 36 of
Koleske is a diepoxide. See Epoxy 4 definition at column 24 of
Koleske. The monomer and oligomer of representative claim 18 can
be epoxides (specification, pages 4-10 and claims 1 and 3).
Since appellants’ oligomers are disclosed as being reactable in
forming a cured coating (cationically curable), they are
polymerizable materials (monomers). Thus, the diepoxy “Epoxy 4"
2 The examiner (answer, page 4) has determined that the
polyol of Koleske is a transfer agent within the scope of the
appealed claims. This finding is not inconsistent with
appellants’ specification (page 17) wherein a variety of polyols
are listed (non-exclusively) as transferring agents. Appellants
have not specifically refuted that factual finding of the
examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007