Appeal 2007-2910
Application 10/304,881
1 (2) a vinyl acetate-based polymeric emulsion;
2 (3) an epoxy resin that is a glycidyl ether of bisphenol A; and
3 (4) an amine curative.
4 The epoxy resin and amine curative are "substantially stoichiometric", which
5 just means these reactants are present in the proportions necessary to react
6 substantially completely. As noted above, the pigment limitation appears to
7 be redundant given that the composition is a paint.
8 THE REJECTION
9 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as having been
10 obvious. The examiner has cited16 patents to Robeson17 and Levine,18 as
11 well as an article from the text Applied Polymer Science,19 as evidence in
12 support of the rejection.
13 In analyzing obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must
14 be determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims
15 ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective
16 evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject
17 matter (so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. Such
16 Examiner's Answer (Ans.) 2-3.
17 Lloyd M. Robeson & David A. Dubowik, Epoxy resin-vinyl acetate
polymer blends, US 6,235,811 B1 (issued 22 May 2001) (Robeson). Lloyd
M. Robeson is also a named inventor for the application on appeal.
18 Morris Levine, Michael Yurcheshen & Roland W. Hight, Water-based
epoxy acrylic coating compositions, US 3,945,963 (issued 23 March 1976)
(Levine).
19 The APS article of footnote 9; also called "Tess" in the record.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013