Ex parte ROSENBERGER et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 95-1092                                                          
          Application 08/044,436                                                      


          consideration pursuant to a restriction requirement under 37                
          CFR § 1.142(b).  We affirm-in-part.2                                        
                             The Claimed Subject Matter                               
               The claims on appeal are directed to a process of                      
          applying waterborne coating compositions.  The process                      
          involves continuously modifying the water content of the                    
          waterborne coating composition as it is being sprayed in                    
          response to humidity measurements.  Claim 1 is illustrative of              
          the claimed subject matter:                                                 
                    1.   A method of applying waterborne coating                      
               compositions onto a substrate under varying humidity                   
               conditions comprising:                                                 
                    (a) measuring relative humidity in the spray                      
               area in which a stream of waterborne coating                           
               composition is being supplied to a spray device;                       
                    (b) based on the relative humidity measurement                    
               controlling the proportionate flow rates of the                        
               stream of waterborne coating and an aqueous additive                   
               to be mixed into the waterborne coating composition                    
               stream;                                                                
                    (c) mixing the additive into the waterborne                       
               coating composition stream at the proportionate flow                   


               We note that appellants filed a reply brief (Paper No. 12) which was2                                                                     
          denied entry by the examiner (Paper No. 13) because it was not directed to  
          only new points of argument raised in the answer.  Accordingly, we have not 
          considered the reply brief in our deliberations.                            
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007