Appeal No. 2001-1879
Application No. 08/919,448
We consider first the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Horowitz ‘955 relates to coating steel articles with a
composition that is similar to the one presently claimed with the
exception of comprising a urethane prepolymer and a peroxide.
Horowitz ‘811, on the other hand, while disclosing a composition
comprising epoxy and urethane prepolymers, as well as a peroxide,
is directed to coating an aluminum, not steel, substrate. It is
the examiner’s position that inasmuch as Horowitz ‘955 and
Horowitz ‘811 disclose compositions which protect metal surfaces
by grafting to the oxidized surface of the metals, it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a
composition comprising both epoxy and urethane prepolymers as a
protective coating for steel.
While the examiner’s rationale is not without logical
appeal, we find that the disclosures of Horowitz ‘955 and
Horowitz ‘811, in conjunction with appellants’ Declaration of
July 9, 1999, support the conclusion that the claimed subject
matter, as a whole, would have been nonobvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Neither Horowitz ’955 nor Horowitz ‘811 is
directed to coating metals, in general. Rather, Horowitz ‘955 is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007