Appeal No. 96-0607
Application No. 08/134,778
polymers and does not relate to corrosion-resistant paints
(brief, page 5). Appellants’ arguments are not well taken
since, as discussed above, Barnett discloses the same use as
Daniel (latex binders for paints). Barnett and Daniel need
not relate to the same use as disclosed by appellants to be 7
properly combined in a rejection under § 103. In re Kemps, 97
F.3d 1427, 1430,
40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(The motivation in the
prior art to combine the references does not have to be
identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness).
Furthermore, the artisan would have recognized that the
teachings of Barnett, although not specifically directed to
core/shell polymers, would be applicable to similar core or
shell polymers per se.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the subject
matter of appealed claim 8, and the claims that stand or fall
7Appellants disclose that the present invention comprises
the utilization of two particular ingredients (a salt of AMPS
and a diphenyl sulfonate surfactant) in the preparation of a
waterborne coating binder (specification, page 2, penultimate
paragraph). This appears to be the same use as disclosed by
Daniel and Barnett, even though appellants may ultimately use
the binder in a different type of paint (a corrosion-resistant
paint).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007