Appeal No. 96-1142 Application 07/939,180 Appellants argue that there is no compelling basis for combining Henning and Hombach (brief, page 3). The examiner argues that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to form a laminate coating of Henning employing a polyisocyanate compound which is disclosed by Hombach in order to achieve an adhesive coating which exhibits increased heat resistance and water resistant properties of the laminated product” (answer, page 5). By “laminate coating of Henning”, the examiner apparently means a multi-layer coating which includes an adhesion coat which, as pointed out above, is one type of coating which Henning states can be formed using his composition. The examiner’s reasoning is deficient in that the examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the applied references to add a polyisocyanate to Henning’s coating mass, which is disclosed as being useful for coating flexible substrates such as textiles and leather (page 2), and to use the modified coating mass to laminate thermoplastic moldings. The examiner, therefore, has not 11Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007