Appeal No. 96-1781
Application 08/389,521
493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re O’Farrell,
853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re
Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Because appellants do not rely upon any evidence for
overcoming such a prima facie case of obviousness, we conclude
that the invention recited in appellants’ claim 11 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claim 12
Appellants’ claim 12 depends from claim 11 and recites
that the epoxidized block polymer and aminoplast are partially
prereacted before being added to the surfactant/water mixture.
The examiner points out (answer, page 8) that Howell, Jr.
discloses heating a mixture of an epoxy resin and an
aminoplast to 120-130EF (49-54EC) and that Anderson discloses
heating such a mixture to 50-55EC (col. 4, lines 2-7). The
examiner argues that because these temperatures are above the
minimum temperature of
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007