Appeal No. 1996-0438
Application No. 08/090,343
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the answer, and we add the following primarily
for emphasis.
There is no dispute that Horley, like appellants,
discloses compositions which are curable at room temperature
comprising the presently claimed components (i) anhydride-
functional compound and (iii) hydroxy-functional compound.
The third component of Horley's composition is a compound
containing at least two epoxide groups rather than the
monoepoxide of the appealed claims. However, we agree with
the examiner, especially in light of the Heilman disclosure,
that it would have been prima facie obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to substitute some of the
polyepoxide of Horley with a monoepoxide in order to increase
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007