Appeal No. 2003-0757
Application No. 09/849,884
concentration of the ultraviolet absorber in said first layer”
(see claim 9; the Answer, page 4; and the Decision, paragraph
bridging pages 3-4).
Appellant only relies on the Examples as support for the
subject matter in question (Brief, page 4; Decision, page 4).
Example 2, as pointed out by the examiner, discloses the same
amount of the ultraviolet absorber in the inner and outer layer,
and therefore fails to provide basis or support for the claimed
one-fifth ratio (Answer, page 3; specification, pages 10-12).
Calculations for Example 3, as also pointed out by the examiner,
cannot be determined due to lack of disclosure regarding the
amount of solvent in the polysiloxane SHC 4000 (Decision, page
6). Accordingly, appellant’s alleged support for the subject
matter in question is only based on Example 1, where the amount
of ultraviolet absorber in the outer coating is in the ratio of
0.187 of the concentration of the ultraviolet absorber in the
inner coating, if we assume that “concentration” is based on
solids amount (i.e., 1.5 parts/8% based on solids = 0.187).
However, the subject matter in question is the ratio
“approximately one-fifth” (0.2) of the concentration. Thus, even
assuming arguendo that appellant is correct regarding
calculations for the “concentration,” we determine that appellant
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007