Ex parte BORS et al. - Page 6





                 Appeal No. 1998-3205                                                                                     
                 Application No. 08/272,438                                                                               

                 aqueous emulsion-polymerized polymeric binder having a glass transition                                  
                 temperature from about -35ºC to about +25ºC.                                                             
                         We reverse the examiner’s rejection to the extent that it is predicated on                       
                 Bors or Smith.                                                                                           
                         Turning now to the Bernard reference, we find that Bernard neither discloses                     
                 nor suggests a method for improving gloss retention on exposure to light of a dried                      
                 coating formed from a coalescent-free aqueous coating composition.  On the                               
                 contrary, Bernard is drawn to an entirely different field of endeavor, i.e., providing                   
                 inherently tacky, emulsion pressure-sensitive adhesive polymers.  Furthermore, we                        
                 agree with appellants that Bernard would not have suggested a polymeric                                  
                 composition comprising a polymer having from about 2% to about 20%, by weight                            
                 based on the weight of the polymer, of at least one copolymerized ethylenically-                         
                 unsaturated active methylene monomer as recited in the appealed claims (see                              
                 Appeal Brief, page 9).  Accordingly, Bernard does not constitute sufficient evidence                     
                 to support a finding of anticipation or a conclusion of obviousness of claims 6-10;                      
                 we reverse the examiner’s rejection to the extent that it is predicated on Bernard.                      








                                                            6                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007