Appeal No. 2003-0891
Application 09/011,614
the composition,” whereas in the claimed compositions, these two ingredients “are compatible
and form a single layer which strongly adheres to the substrate” (brief, page 10; emphasis in
original). In this respect, appellants point to the teaching in Imagawa that when the compositions
therein are applied to an impervious writing surface and dried, a layer is formed by the fatty
compound on the writing surface and a layer is formed by the styrene compound and ink thereon,
such that the composition can be removed from the writing surface, that is, erasable, citing col. 6,
lines 8-17, and col. 5, lines 44-45 (brief, page 8). We note a similar teaching at col. 3, lines
24-34. Appellants argue that the claimed composition is compatible, that is, it does not separate,
and point out that the “stain test” limitation in the appealed claims encompasses this property.
Apparently, because the compositions of Imagawa are taught to form separate layers, appellants
conclude that such compositions would stain the silicone coated paper used in the “stain test”
specified in appealed claim 11 (brief, pages 8-9).
Second, appellants contend that in the Imagawa Examples and claims, “the amount of
oily substance is always greater than the amount of resin” which is contrary to the claimed ratio
(brief, page 10). And, third, appellants offer the conclusion that “[t]he Imagawa composition is
not useful for an adhesive, sealing compound or a long term coating since the bond strength
between the dried composition and the substrate is not strong and is readily erasable by rubbing
with a soft cloth” (id.).
We are unconvinced for a number of reasons. First, there is no claim limitation with
respect to the compatibility of any of the multitudes of such ingredients in any amount that can be
present in the claimed compositions as we interpreted appealed claim 11 and claims 14 through
20 and 22 through 29 dependent thereon above, and the layers of such ingredients that may form
after the composition is prepared. Indeed, as disclosed at page 11 of appellants’ specification, the
purpose of the “stain test” is to determine “migration of the plasticizer,” apparently from the
vicinity of the styrene polymer, and may provide statistically reliable results if the fatty
compound and the styrene polymer at the specified ratio are indeed the major constituent solids
in the aqueous dispersion. Such dispersions are encompassed within the appealed claims, but
with other encompassed dispersions, the amount of styrene polymer and fatty compounds at the
specified ratio would not constitute the major component of the dispersion or indeed, the affects
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007