Appeal No. 2001-1820
Application No. 09/169,280
primary conflicting patent is used as evidence, any other prior
art evidence may be relied upon to establish prima facie
obviousness. See In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d at 599-600, 154
USPQ at 33-34.
Appellants also argue that Blohowiak focuses primarily on
adhesion promotion and this addition of a pigment to a Blohowiak
sol “constitutes a separate and distinctive invention.” Brief,
page 8. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons noted
above, namely that it was well known in this art to add customary
additives such as pigments to give a sol a desired color (see
Philipp).
Appellants argue that neither Philipp nor Blohowiak teach
the specific claimed sol “designed for bonding with a resin” as
required by claims 8 and 17 (Brief, page 7). This argument is
not well taken since, as noted by appellants and recited in claim
8 on appeal, the organosilane need only be “adapted” for
covalently bonding to a resin applied over the coating. This
“intended use” does not differentiate the claimed subject matter
from the prior art applied since the prior art discloses use of
the same organosilanes (e.g., TEOS) as disclosed and claimed by
appellants. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007