Ex Parte WALDER - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-1791                                                        
          Application No. 08/588,945                                                  


          Claim 26 is reproduced below:                                               
               26.  A method of crosslinking a waterborne coating binder              
               polymer bearing at least two carboxylic acid groups                    
               comprising admixing said polymer and an aromatic                       
               polycarbodiimide having the formula                                    
               H3C-O-{-CH2CH2-O}3-C(O)N(H)-[R-N=C=N-]n-R’-N(H)C(O)-                   
               {O-CH2CH2-}p-O-CH3                                                     
               wherein m is an integer of from 5 to 10; n is an integer of            
               from 2 to 7; p is an integer of from 5 to 10; and R and R’             
               are independently selected from arylene, alkyl-substituted             
               arylene, biarylene alkylene or alkyl-substituted biarylene             
               alkylene.                                                              
               The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:              
          Hoeschele                     3,450,562           Jun. 17, 1969             
          Taylor                   EP 0 241 805 A2          Oct. 21, 1987             
          (Published European Patent Application)                                     
          Mallon                   EP 0 277 361 A1          Aug. 10, 1988             
          (Published European Patent Application)                                     
               Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as               
          unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Hoeschele and                 
          either Taylor or Mallon.                                                    
               We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and               
          applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by               
          both the examiner and the appellants in support of their                    
          respective positions.  This review has led us to conclude that              
          the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is well founded.                       



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007