Appeal No. 2003-0566
Application No. 09/395,072
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants acknowledge in their Brief that they do not
contest the examiner's factual determination that both
Friedlander and Rosenberry, the primary references, disclose
methods of forming a solid floor coating by curing with UV
radiation an acrylate-containing composition that may also
contain dyes or pigments. Appellants also do not dispute that
Field, the secondary reference, teaches adding a dye with a
visible color to a UV curable acrylate-containing composition
which undergoes a change in color upon exposure to UV radiation
for the purpose of determining that the composition has cured.
Accordingly, based on the collective teachings of the prior art,
we fully concur with the examiner that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the dyes of Field
in the acrylate-containing curable compositions of Friedlander
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007