Appeal 2007-3256
Application 10/900,619
13) According to Munro, the coatings may include primers, basecoats
and topcoats (Munro, ¶ [0040]). In particular, Munro discloses an
embodiment in which the coating that includes the color effect colorant
is a basecoat, over which is applied a clearcoat that does not contain the
colorant (Munro, ¶ [0044]).
14) Munro discloses that the liquid or powder slurry coatings of the
invention can be applied to the surface to be coated by any suitable
coating process (Munro, ¶ [0047]).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
As an initial matter, we note that Appellants have not presented
separate arguments as to any particular claim. Accordingly, we decide this
appeal on the basis of claim 1 as to each ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Claim Interpretation
In order to make a proper comparison between the claimed invention
and the prior art, the Examiner must first construe the language of the
claims. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
(Fed. Cir. 1994). During examination, claims are given the broadest
reasonable construction in light of the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir.
2004). In the present case, the Examiner interprets “tactile effect
composition” as referring to “a composition that, when applied to a
substrate, produces a desired feel” (Answer 4). The Examiner interprets
“color effect composition” as “a composition that imparts a desired color to
a coating” (Answer 4). The Examiner also notes that the claims, given their
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013