Appeal 2007-0416
Application 10/634,330
(d) claims 9 and 16 over the combination of Hellmann, Ozawa, and
Shiraishi further in view of Heaps and Corcoran.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any of the claims in
the separately rejected groups of claims. Accordingly, the separately
rejected groups of claims stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
We consider first the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-15, 17, and 18 over
Hellmann in view of Ozawa and Shiraishi. Hellmann, like Appellants,
discloses a method of painting plastic substrates, such as automobile parts,
by applying to the substrate a first layer comprising a binder and the
presently claimed color or pigment, solvent, conventional paint additive,
ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and a chlorinated polyolefin. Much is
made of the fact by Appellants that Hellmann refers to its initial layer as a
primer layer, and not as a base coat layer, and Appellants contend that there
is a basic difference in the art between a primer layer and a base coat layer.
However, having viewed the evidence presented by Appellants and the
Examiner on this point, we are persuaded that the terms are used
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013