Appeal No. 2002-0223 6
Application No. 09/410,162
We have difficulty accepting the distinction urged by
appellants that ‘coating’ differs from ‘impregnating’ in
this case. It would appear that a porous material like
paper would be impregnated to some extent by an
aqueous composition applied by ‘various coating
techniques’ as Keim et al. suggests, whether the
composition is called ‘coating’ or ‘impregnating.’ It
seems doubtful that a clearly defined interface
between the coating and the paper would result.
On the facts before us in this case, we have difficulty in accepting coating and
impregnation of steel as being art recognized equivalents, steel being a non-porous
material. We conclude that a non-porous material, such as steel, would be coated but
not impregnated, by applying methyl triacetoxy silane. Any reaction with the steel would
at most be limited to a surface reaction between the silane and the substrate in the
absence of impregnation. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims over Leidheiser is not
sustainable.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 51, 54 and 55 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007