Appeal No. 2001-1820
Application No. 09/169,280
the product and process of Philipp. Thus the burden of proof has
shifted to appellants and they have not proferred any
countervailing evidence. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,
195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
Appellants argue that Philipp does not teach or suggest all
the components in the claims of the present invention and does
not teach the claimed ratio of those components to one another
(Brief, page 6). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive since
appellants do not specifically point out which component(s)
is(are) not taught or suggested by Phillip. As discussed above,
the examiner finds that Philipp discloses all of the components
recited in claim 1 on appeal. With regard to the ratio of
pigment to organometallics required by claim 1, we agree with the
examiner that the amount of pigment added to the composition of
Philipp would have been well within the skill in this art, as
Philipp teaches that these additives are “customary” (line
bridging cols. 4-5) and the function of the pigment is taught by
the reference as “colorants” (col. 5, l. 2). Thus it would have
been equally within the ordinary skill in this art to have added
sufficient pigment to produce the desired color.
Appellants argue that Philipp does not suggest that its
coating “chemically covalently bonds” to the surface but that it
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007