Appeal No. 94-3812
Application 07/857,701
of Lucey and Dessauer. Therein, appellant argues that the
proposed combination of Lucey with Dessauer would not yield
the article of claim 1 because there is no basis for
concluding that substituting for the filler in Lucey the
filler in Dessauer would yield a transparent coating.
Nevertheless, we find nothing in the art relied upon
which would indicate that such a coating is not transparent to
visible light. Appellant's mere argument to the contrary is
not adequate to overcome the fact that Lucey discloses that
filled compositions have good resistance to humidity which is
one of appellant's alleged properties for his coating. We are
satisfied that this property alone would have motivated a
person skilled in the art to have added a filler to Lucey's
curable vinyl monomer compositions. Moreover, Lucey
recognizes that the amount of filler used depends on the
ultimate final use for the composition (column 18, lines 33
through 56). Finally, the disclosure of fumed silica in
column 19, line 40, which is a form of colloidal silica, would
have motivated an ordinarily skilled person in the art to use
the colloidal silica of Dessauer in Lucey's composition.
Accordingly, we shall affirm the rejection of the claims as
unpatentable form the disclosure of Lucey considered with
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007