Appeal 2006-2950
Application 10/036,126
Appellants’ definition of “hydrophilic binder” described at page 12 of the
Specification.
Although Muys does not mention employing gelatins or gelatin
derivatives as a binder for its electrically conductive antistatic coating
composition, the Examiner has correctly found that Gardener teaches
gelatins or gelatin derivatives to be conventional film-forming binders useful
for electrically conductive antistatic coating compositions, including those
containing water. Specifically, Gardener teaches (col. 15, ll. 10-32 and 40-
52):
A wide variety of film-forming binders are useful as one
skilled in the art would readily appreciate. Thus, the materials
listed herein are representative only, and not meant to be
limiting any way … Examples include methyl or ethyl
methacrylate homo- and copolymers…polyurethanes…gelatin
(including alkali- or acid-treated gelatins), gelatin derivatives
(such as acetylated gelatin and phthalated gelatin),
polysaccharides (such as dextran, gum arabic and zein), or
gelatin-like synthetic polymers…
…
The film-forming binder is dissolved in a second
solvent…
Preferred second solvents are water, dichloromethane (or other
chloronated solvents).
Implicit in this teaching is that it is well within the ambit of one of ordinary
skill in the art to select appropriate or optimum film-forming binders,
including gelatins and their derivatives, for given electrically conductive
antistatic coating compositions, including those containing water. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d at 826, 159 USPQ at 344. This is especially true in this
case since Gardener lists the latex polymers taught by Muys, e.g.,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013