Appeal No. 95-0365
Application 07/921,537
through the use of factual evidence or sound scientific
reasoning, that the combined limitations would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present
invention.
As a final matter, we point out that we agree with the
appellants that the contested statement on p. 1 of the
specification identifies a problem in the prior art which the2
present invention seeks to resolve. We find the examiner’s
statement on p. 9 of the Answer that “[w]hen one, without knowing
how it is going to affect his interests, makes a statement which
he later attempts to deny when he finds it against his interests,
he will not be believed unless he produces convincing proof of
his later assertion,” to be unreasonable and unwarranted. We
know of no case law which would support this extreme position.
Accordingly, Rejection II is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
2The specification states “[a]queous formaldehyde is known
to be an excellent and rapid crosslinker for acetoacetate
polymers and specifically for vinyl emulsion polymers with
pendant acetoacetate groups. However, the crosslinking reaction
is very fast and is not controllable, so acetoacetate emulsions
to which formaldehyde has been added are very poor film formers
and are not generally useful in coating compositions.”
Specification, p. 1., para. 2.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007