Appeal No. 2000-0051 Page 3
Application No. 08/545,629
Claims 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Renk in view of Mallonee.
We refer to the briefs and to the answer for the opposing
viewpoints expressed by appellants and by the examiner concerning
the above-noted rejection.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants in so far as the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection. Our
reasoning follows.
We note that all of the claims on appeal require a method
that includes the step of concentrating a binder that consists of
a specified non-water-soluble, carboxylate and sulfonate free
polyester resin and/or polyacrylate resin and an organic solvent
to provide a solvent containing resin with a solids content of 80
to 90 weight percent, the step of adding an emulsifier to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007