Appeal No. 2003-0819
Application No. 09/872,928
Ertl describes 1-oxa-3-oxo-4,8-diazo-spiro[4,5]decane light
stabilizers for protecting various polymers from the damaging
effects of UV radiation. (Abstract; column 1, lines 5-22.)
Ertl further teaches that the polymers include epoxide resins as
well as two-component acrylate resin coatings composed of
acrylate resin containing hydroxy groups and aliphatic or
aromatic isocyanates. (Column 7, lines 11-60.) Ertl also
teaches “[p]owder coatings which are known per se and which have
been treated, for example, with a solution of the compounds.”
(Column 7, lines 60-63.) According to Ertl, “further
stabilizers” such as benzofuran-2-one and phosphorus-containing
compounds such as trinonylphenyl phosphite may be used in
addition to the 1-oxa-3-oxo-4,8-diazo-spiro[4,5]decane light
stabilizers. (Column 8, lines 1-36.)
Malik describes a solid solution composition comprising a
melt blend of (a) a 2,2,6,6-tetraalkylpiperidinyl compound
having a low molecular weight and (b) a 2,2,6,6-
claims, 20-30 [sic], are each argued separately.” (Appeal brief
filed Oct. 1, 2002, paper 14, p. 5.) We understand this
somewhat confused statement to mean that the appellants intended
to argue the process claims (claims 25-28) and the film claims
(claims 29 and 30) separately from the heat-curable powder
coating compositions (claims 14-17 and 19-24). In the
“ARGUMENT” section of the brief, however, the appellants do not
provide any arguments in support of the separate patentability
of claims 29 and 30. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to
claims 14 and 25. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007