Appeal No. 95-1092
Application 08/044,436
rates selected in step (b) to obtain an adjusted
formulation of the waterborne coating composition;
(d) spraying the adjusted waterborne coating
composition onto the substrate that is to be coated
in the spray area.
The Rejection
The following prior art references are relied upon by the
examiner to support the rejection of the claims:
Fujisawa 4,738,219 Apr. 19, 1988
Iwatsu et al. (Iwatsu) 5,127,362 Jul. 7, 1992
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fujisawa in view of Iwatsu.
Opinion
On page 3 of the brief, we note that appellants consider
claims 7-9 to be separately patentable. Appellants submit
that “the features of claims 7, 8, and 9 are simply not shown
in any prior art of record ...” (brief, page 7). The examiner
held that the “rejection of claims 1-9 stand or fall together
because appellant’s [sic] brief does not include a statement
that this grouping of claims does not stand or fall together”
(answer, page 2). Notwithstanding this statement, however,
the examiner considered the separate patentability of claims
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007