Ex Parte Kohler et al - Page 8


               Appeal No. 2004-1131                                                                                                   
               Application 09/562,632                                                                                                 

               composition of a silane coupling agent and an alkoxysilylated NCO-containing urethane                                  
               prepolymer which has “improved adhesion properties to . . . metal” (e.g., col. 1-2, particularly                       
               col. 1, lines 7-13).  Among the examples of epoxysilanes used as silane coupling agents by Tsuno                       
               are “γ-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxylsilane” and “3,4-epoxycyclohexylethyl-trimethoxysilane” (col.                         
               2, lines 24-26), disclosed by appellants as the preferred                         “(3-                                 
               glycidoxypropyl)triethoxysilane” and “β-(3,4-epoxycyclohexyl)ethyltrimethoxysilane”                                    
               (specification, page 5, lines 19-21, 23-24 and 26).  As appellants point out, the diol used by                         
               Tsuno does not contain acid groups and the compositions are not aqueous based (e.g., col. 3).                          
               Indeed, Tsuno further discloses that “a part or whole of the NCO groups remained [sic] in the                          
               polyisocyanate thus reacted is reacted with the NCO reactive silane” (col. 2, lines 58-61).  In                        
               Example 2, Tsuno applies a disclosed composition to a stainless steel plate (col. 5).                                  
                       We find that the combined teachings of Kubitza, Hatano and Tsuno provide substantial                           
               evidence in support of the examiner’s position.  Indeed, one of ordinary skill in this art would                       
               have found in the disclosures of Hatano and Tsuno the reasonable suggestion that silane coupling                       
               agents containing epoxy and lower alkoxy groups can improve adhesion to metals of different                            
               urethane compositions by using the epoxysilane coupling agents as a primer for the composition                         
               or mixed in the composition at various stages.  In this respect, Hatano would have taught that                         
               these epoxysilane coupling agents can be mixed with a polyester polyol which can contain acid                          
               groups, and a polyisocyanate to form a composition.  Thus, we determine that one of ordinary                           
               skill in this art would have been motivated by the combined teachings of the references to                             
               included an epoxysilane coupling agent, such as those disclosed by Hamates and Tsuno, in the                           
               coating compositions of Kubitza in the reasonable expectation of improving the adhesion of the                         
               composition to metal surfaces, such as aluminum and steel, to address the problem of corrosion                         
               recognized in the art for such compositions.  Thus, this person would have reasonably arrived at                       
               the claimed coating composition encompassed by appealed claim 1 without recourse to                                    
               appellants’ specification.  See In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1497-1500, 226 USPQ 1005,                                
               1006-08 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397-98, 187 USPQ 481, 484-85 (CCPA                              
               1975); In re Castner, 518 F.2d 1234, 1238-39, 186 USPQ 213, 217 (CCPA 1975); In re Lintner,                            
               458 F.2d 1013, 1015-16, 173 USPQ 560, 562-63 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d                               


                                                                - 8 -                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007