Appeal No. 2002-0552
Application No. 09/117,603
Additional insight into the examiner's position regarding
the obviousness rejection of claim 3 is found in the examiner's
answer (pages 4-5), wherein the examiner has urged that a
substance "in some respects resembling" a dark brown or black
bituminous viscous liquid obtained by destructive distillation of
organic material is "tar" and that even with the inclusion of an
epoxy component as in the composition described in Arnett (col.
11), the resultant sealant therein is still "tar."
In describing the coal-tar epoxy coating relied upon by the
examiner, Arnett (col. 11, lines 10-31) notes that the coating
composition is epoxy-based and makes use of Shell Epon 828 and
diethylenetriamine (DETA) as the base resin and curing agent,
wherein the curing agent ratio is 12 percent DETA by weight in
the Shell 828. Coal-tar in an amount of 10% by weight is then
added to the basic epoxy resin and curing agent mixture and the
resulting viscous fluid is applied by dip coating or by brush to
a metal surface to be protected and then allowed to cure. Like
appellant, we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have viewed the coal-tar epoxy coating
composition of Arnett containing only 10% by weight of coal-tar
to be "pure tar" as required in appellant's claim 3 on appeal.
Thus, even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to attempt to
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007