Appeal No. 1997-1991 Page 4
Application No. 08/376,270
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants that the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter.2
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection, as
stated.
Mosbach discloses polyisocyanate mixtures useful as
coating compositions and a process of preparing the
compositions. Mosbach teaches that the mixtures may contain
(cyclo)-aliphatically bound isocyanate groups, carboxyl groups
and (cyclo)aliphatically bound uretdione groups. See column
1, line 65 through column 2, line 53 of Mosbach.
Coogan discloses a composition comprising an aqueous
dispersion of polyurethane that may be used as a coating
2We note that it is the examiner who bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness in
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007