Appeal No. 1996-0575
Application No. 08/219,551
requiring putting one specifically defined resin and the pigment together, and
then putting this first mixture together with the second specifically defined
resin.
The examiner offers no evidence or facts which would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in this art at the time of the invention, that the method of preparation disclosed by Pettit
should be modified in a manner which would reasonably lead to the claimed method of
manufacture.
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of unpatentability with regard to the claimed method. Where
the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be
overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.1988).
Therefore, the rejection of claims 13-15, 17-21, 23, 30-40, 48, 50-58, 62-63. 65-66, and
68-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 5-7, 9-11, 22, 24-29, 41-47, 59-61, 64, and 67:
These claims are directed to thermosetting paint compositions comprising a
mixture of resins having specifically defined glass transition temperatures (Tg) wherein the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007