Appeal No. 2003-0819
Application No. 09/872,928
Regarding Valet, the appellants urge that the Laver
declaration filed Oct. 1, 2002 provides evidence of
“surprisingly better stabilizing results” for the claimed
invention. (Appeal brief, page 8.) We disagree, because the
Laver declaration suffers from the same infirmities as the Zeren
declaration.
Regarding claim 25, the appellants contend that “[n]one of
the primary references even recognizes the problem of
discoloration of heat cured powder coating compositions...”
(Appeal brief, page 11.) This position is also without merit.
Ertl, Malik, and Valet all disclose powder coating compositions
and are concerned with stabilization of the compositions.
We do not have to address the other remaining applied prior
art references because they are unnecessary to support the
examiner’s rejection as to appealed claim 14 or 25.
Finally, we do not find any of the arguments set forth in
the reply brief filed Feb. 12, 2003 (paper 16) to be persuasive
for the reasons discussed above.
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims 14 through 17 and 19 through
30 as unpatentable over “Ertl [], Malik [] or Valet [], in view
of Dubs [] or Nesvadba [], further in view of Nozaki [], Daly []
or Kaplan...”
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007