Appeal No. 2003-0891
Application 09/011,614
atoms and, optionally a member selected from the group consisting of antioxidants, pigments,
fillers, preservatives, defoamers, film forming agents, fragrances, adhesion promoters, solvents,
dyes, flameproofing agents, flow controllers, resins, tackifiers, viscosity regulators, dispersion
aids, emulsifiers and mixtures thereof, and wherein said aqueous dispersion has a solids content
of 20% to 85% by weight and the dried aqueous dispersion is non-staining when stored between
sheets of silicone paper for three weeks at 60°C.
The appealed claims, as represented by claim 11, are drawn to an aqueous dispersion that
is liquid or spreadable at 20°C and useful as a binder, sealing or coating composition, and
consisting essentially of at least a homopolymer or copolymer of styrene in a ratio of from
100:0.5 to 100:15 of a fatty compound comprises at least one member selected from the group
consisting of fatty acids, fatty alcohols, and derivatives thereof, and optionally one of the
specified ingredients, the dispersion having a solids content of 20% to 85% by weight and the
dried aqueous dispersion is non-staining when stored between sheets of silicone paper for three
weeks at 60°C.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Motier et al. (Motier) 3,862,067 Jan. 21, 1975
Imagawa 5,004,763 Apr. 2, 1991
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 11, 12 and 14 through 20 and 22 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Imagawa, and appealed claims 30 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Motier.2
Appellants state in the brief that “[e]ach of the claims must be considered individually”
(page 6). Thus, we decide this appeal based on the appealed claims. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(2002).
We affirm the ground of rejection of appealed claims 11, 14 through 20 and 22 through
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we reverse all other grounds of rejection.
We refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ brief and reply brief for a complete
exposition of the opposing positions advanced on appeal.
Opinion
2 The examiner did not advance on appeal the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, set forth in the final rejection of December 31, 2001 (Paper No. 26, page 2).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007