Appeal No. 2002-1791
Application No. 08/588,945
successfully obtaining the advantageous properties indicated in
Hoechele, Taylor and Mellon.
The appellants allege (Brief, page 8) that:
Appellants have provided a method of crosslinking a
waterborne coating binder polymer bearing at least two
carboxylic acid groups by admixing the polymer and certain
water-soluble or water-dispersible aromatic
polycarbodiimides, a process which is slow enough for
substantially all of it to occur during or after film
formation with the result that a number of important
requirements for a good coating such as mar resistance and
solvent resistance are greatly improved.
The appellants then go on to argue that the applied prior art
references do not teach or would have suggested the obtention of
the above advantageous coating properties. Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument since the above-
mentioned suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art
references would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
arrive at the claimed subject matter as indicated supra. The
applied prior art references need not be combined for the same
purpose contemplated by the appellants, i.e., for allegedly
obtaining the above additional advantageous coating properties so
long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art
teachings are present. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(“[a]s long as some motivation
or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007