Appeal No. 95-0442
Application 08/026,183
F.2d 549, 551-2, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976); In re De Lajarte,
337 F.2d 870, 873-4, 143 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1964); In re
Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 896 (CCPA 1963).
Appellants teach that for a powder coating composition to be
capable of performing the intended use recited in the preamble of
appellants’ claim 1, i.e., impregnation of rotor coil windings,
it must have strong adhesion and good penetrability
(specification, page 1, line 16 - page 2, line 3). The
requirement of good penetrability is specifically recited in the
preamble of appellants’ claim 1.
A comparison of Yamamoto’s Table 1 and the table in
appellants’ specification (page 9) indicates that the Yamamoto
composition provides adhesion which is substantially stronger
than that of appellants’ composition. Yamamoto’s composition
therefore provides adhesion which is strong enough for
impregnating rotor coil windings.
Yamamoto, however, is silent as to the penetrability of the
disclosed epoxy compositions. Appellants teach that use of a
rubber-modified epoxy resin having an epoxy equivalent of 800-
2000 provides for adequate penetrability without causing excess
flowability of the composition (specification, page 3, lines 13-
23). The epoxy equivalent of Yamamoto’s rubber-modified epoxy
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007