Appeal 2007-0158
Application 10/415,202
Prior Art
10) Elmore discloses methods of preparing stable aqueous epoxy
dispersions (Abstract). The dispersions are prepared by admixing a
polyamine curing agent with a stable epoxy dispersion comprising a
water-immiscible monoepoxide reactive diluent in an aqueous epoxy
resin dispersion (see col. 4, ll. 22-59).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Has Appellant provided sufficient evidence to overcome the
Examiner’s finding that Sweet, Gunter, and Elmore inherently disclose
powder coating materials?
The Examiner and Appellant agree that the applied prior art
disclosures are limited to aqueous compositions containing solid, particulate
epoxy resins (Answer 8, 10, and 11-12). Appellant contends that these
compositions are chemically (and physically) distinct from the claimed
composition in which the epoxy resin is present in a “powder coating
material” (Reply 2). The Examiner argues that the language “powder
coating material” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because
“there is nothing in this language that materially sets apart the materials used
in the instant invention from the materials used in the prior art” (Answer 9).
Thus, in order to determine whether the claims are anticipated, we must first
ascertain the scope and meaning of the term “powder coating material.”
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013