Appeal No. 2001-1879
Application No. 08/919,448
singularly directed to coating steel articles, whereas Horowitz
‘811, likewise solely relates to coating aluminum articles.
Horowitz ‘955 provides no teaching or suggestion that the
disclosed coating composition can be applied to any metal other
than steel, and Horowitz ‘811 provides no teaching or suggestion
that the disclosed coating composition is suitable for any metal
other than aluminum. When these facts are considered in
combination with appellants’ Declaration which demonstrates that
an exemplified coating composition of the present invention
provides significantly superior abrasion resistance compared to
exemplified coating compositions of Horowitz ‘955 and Horowitz
‘811, we find that the evidence of nonobviousness outweighs the
evidence of obviousness presented by the examiner.
The examiner is not convinced that the Declaration results
are unexpected since Horowitz ‘811 teaches that the peroxide
component regenerates the curing catalyst and the urethane
component cross-links the composition and, accordingly, increased
abrasion resistance would be expected by adding a polyurethane
and a peroxide to the composition of Horowitz ‘955. The examiner
does not explain, however, why the Declaration shows that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007