Appeal No. 1998-2733
Application 08/718,613
(a) the polymer is efficiently electrostatically painted, and
(b) the polymer is not conductive but for the inclusion of the non-volatile metal salt conductivity
inducing materials in the polymer.
The appealed claims, as represented by claim 10, are drawn to a painted article which
comprises at least a layer of electrostatically applied paint over a layer of a polymer prepared from a
polymer formulation including materials which include or form urea groups, urethane groups or mixtures
thereof and a non-volatile metal salt conductivity inducing material, wherein the polymer formed from the
formulation is not conductive but for the inclusion of the non-volatile metal salt conductivity inducing
materials. According to appellants, and as stated in the claim, the polymer prepared according to the
claim can be efficiently painted because of the presence of the non-volatile metal salt conductivity
inducing material therein.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Knobel et al. (Knobel) 4,806,571 Feb. 21, 1989
Pierce 5,188,783 Feb, 23, 1993
Ukai et al. (Ukai)1 2-166158 Jun. 26, 1990
(Published Japanese Patent Application)
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:2,3
claims 10 through 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ukai
taken in view of Knobel; and
claims 10 through 13 and 15 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pierce.
Appellants state in their brief (page 3) that they “group Claims 10-21 together as one group.”
Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claim 10 with respect to each ground of rejection. 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
1 We refer in our opinion to the translation of Ukai prepared for the USPTO by Diplomatic Language
Services, Inc. in 2001. A copy of the translation is attached to this decision.
2 The examiner states in the answer that the two grounds of rejection are set forth in the Office action of
June 27, 1997 (Paper No. 13; pages 5-9).
3 The examiner has apparently dropped the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs, set forth in Paper No. 13 (pages 3-4) because no mention is made thereof in the
answer.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007