Appeal 2006-2159
Application 09/862,234
al; as liquids at room temperature and used a coating composition of
Rosenberry et al as top wear layer composition” (id.). We disagree.
Rosenberry is directed to an oligomer that is liquid at room
temperature, and this oligomer with a diluent can be used as a coating
composition to form a wear layer on floor coverings (col. 1, ll. 16-19; and
col. 2, ll. 26-35). However, the Examiner has failed to establish how this
one (wear) layer could be coated at room temperature in the Simpson
process, where Simpson teaches use of a melt process at high temperatures
such as 80 to 120ºC. for the remaining layers (Simpson, col. 13, ll. 42-45).
The Examiner has further failed to explain how the multi-cavity slot die
coater taught by Simpson would function with one coating at room
temperature for the oligomer of Rosenberry when all the teachings of
Simpson relate to higher temperatures for the required fluidity. The claims
require that the fluid coating compositions are applied simultaneously (Br.
20). As discussed above, we fail to find any factual support for the
Examiner’s finding that Simpson and Sartor teach the use of thinners that
can be used with 100% solids compositions without heating to achieve the
fluidity necessary for processing.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Therefore we REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13,
16-19, 25, 44, 48, 56, 57, 59-64, 66-70, and 72-74 over Simpson in view of
Sartor and Rosenberry. We also REVERSE the rejection of claims 11, 26,
29, 33-39, 55, 58, 65 and 71 over Simpson in view of Sartor, Rosenberry and
Schirmer.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007