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
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007