Appeal No. 2002-1107 Page 7
Application No. 09/662,540
Trademark Office is not able to manufacture and compare products.
See Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 434; In re Brown, 459
F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). This, appellants
have not done. Accordingly, on this record, we shall sustain the
examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections over Koleske.
With regard to the examiner’s § 103 rejection over Roth, we
note that Roth discloses a coating composition that can include
an admixture of epoxy monomers and oligomers (column 3, line 38
through column 5, line 25, a surfactant in amounts overlapping
the claimed amount (column 11, lines 32-35), a photo initiator in
amounts overlapping the claimed amount (column 9, lines 25-28)
and a polyol (transfer agent) in amounts sufficient to speed up
kinetics as set forth at column 8, lines 30-61. Consequently,
appellants arguments that Roth does not disclose the claimed
amount of surfactant is not persuasive. Also, since Roth teaches
that the amount of transfer agent is result effective to speed up
kinetics, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to arrive at the claimed amount of transfer agent from
the teachings of Roth upon routine experimentation in determining
the workable amounts for improved kinetics as suggested by Roth.
As for the claimed amount of epoxy functional monomer, Roth
suggests that monomers or oligomers or mixtures of oligomers and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007