Appeal No. 95-3715 Page 5
Application No. 08/042,899
not teach or suggest the combination of particular layers which
comprise the claimed system including an aprotic organic
solvent based dispersion as a first layer but rather an aqueous
based composition for the first layer. Moreover, the examiner
has failed to provide any convincing reasons based on the
applied prior art, or on the basis of knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art, as to how one
skilled in the art would have arrived at the specific claimed
two layer system from the teachings of the prior art discussed
in Backhouse.
The examiner*s overall position appears to be that one of
ordinary skill in the art, if not concerned with atmospheric
pollution, would have understood that the prior art discussed
in Backhouse would have suggested the alternative of using an
aprotic organic solvent based dispersion for the first layer in
the inventive coating of Backhouse instead of the aqueous based
dispersion taught by patentees not withstanding the express
teachings of Backhouse to use an aqueous medium for dispersion
of the polymer solids in the first layer. However, in reviewing
the reference relied on by the examiner, it is difficult to
discern on what basis this conclusion was reached. Clearly, a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007