Appeal No. 1999-2201
Application No. 08/704,063
differential thermal analysis method,” pp. 541-546, Nippon Kagaku
Kaishi, Vol. 5, 1990 (abstract from Chemical Abstracts relied
upon by the examiner, dated 1990).2
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kurita and Isobe in view of Hara, JP ‘786,
Lee and Keryk (Answer, page 3). The claims on appeal also stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Keryk in
view of JP ‘786 and Lee (Answer, page 5). We affirm both of the
rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons expressed in the
Answer and the reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Kurita, Isobe, JP ‘786, Lee, Hara and
Keryk
The examiner finds that Kurita discloses a method of making
a silicone release coating and a process of coating and heat
curing where the coating comprises the same components (A), (B),
(C) and (D) as recited in claim 35 on appeal, although component
(A) is only generically disclosed as an alkenyl-group terminated
polyorganosiloxane (Answer, page 3).3 The examiner further finds
2See the Answer, page 3, where the examiner states the
rejection includes “the Hara et al abstract.”
3A discussion of Isobe is unnecessary to this decision as
this reference is merely cumulative to Kurita. See the Answer,
page 4.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007