Appeal No. 96-2505
Application No. 08/122,417
see lines 42-46 in column 2). This disclosure of the Schwab
reference is in direct opposition to the appellants' argument
bridging pages 22 and 23 of the brief.
Finally, in many cases, the appellants' arguments do not
persuade us of patentability because we simply disagree with the
appellants' nonobviousness conclusion. The appellants argue, for
example, that "[c]laims 55 and 56 are patentable over the
references of record since there is neither teaching nor
suggestion to disperse the crosslinking agent in the prepolymer
dispersion in a finely divided form" (brief, page 25). From our
perspective, Schwab's teaching of crosslinking agents which are
water dispersible (e.g., see lines 29-37 in column 6) would have
suggested dispersing these compounds in finely divided form as
required by claim 55. Analogously, we cannot agree with the
appellants' patentability conclusion regarding claim 59 in light
of Schwab's express teaching that his dispersions possess the
property of intercoat adhesion (e.g., see lines 28-34 in column
7) whereby a primer coat and finish coat (which read on the here
claimed substrates) are effectively bonded together via Schwab's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007