Appeal No. 2003-1830
Application 09/534,101
Medford “end up with different cured coatings because of the heating step (for the ultraviolet-
curable top coat) disclosed by the applicant” at page 25, lines 9-18, of the specification:3
The improved coating composition of this invention appears to depend on the
heating of the interface between the uncured silicon-containing topcoat and the cured
polyurethane-containing base coat. Without this heating step the top coat does not
bond firmly to the base coat. Moreover, the heating step appears to cause at least part
of the silica to concentrate in a zone 60 (FIG. 1) within 1 or 2 microns of the exposed
surface of the top coat. Examination of a section of the cured coating composition on a
metal substrate with a scanning electron microscope indicated that most of the
colloidal silica concentrated in a zone within 1 or 2 microns of the exposed surface of
the top coat, and there was no discernable boundary in a region 62 of the cured coating
composition where the uncured top coat resin initially contacted the cured based coat
resin.
As appellant points out, Medford does not disclose the heating step and Kidai does not disclose
or suggest the distribution of colloidal silica required by appealed claim 1 (brief, page 6).
With respect to appealed claim 19, appellant submits that neither Kidai nor Medford
discloses or suggests a metal substrate and the combination of a base coat resin bonded to metal
and a top coat resin containing colloidal silica bonded to the base coat (id., pages 6-7).
In response, the examiner assumes that since the claimed coating composition and that of
Medford is the same, the colloidal silica concentration is also the same (page 4). The examiner
further takes the position that while appellant states that a “heating step appears to cause at least
part of the silica to concentrate in a zone 60 (Fig. 1) within one or two microns of the exposed
surface of the top coat,” Medford does “not disclose any such heating step and indeed, heating is
not necessary because [Medford’s] coating composition is cured with ultraviolet light” (id.). The
examiner notes appellant’s argument “that the article of claim 19 . . . includes a body with a
metallic surface,” a base coat and a top coat (id., pages 4-5). The examiner concludes that
appellant’s “arguments are unpersuasive because the argued critical heating . . . step is not
claimed or disclosed in the specification for ultraviolet-curable coating composition,” and it is
not “stated or disclosed that the argued heating step is critical and necessary before curing
coating composition by ultraviolet light to obtain greater concentration of colloidal silica in zone
adjacent to exposed surface than in the rest of the top coat,” there being “no showing that in
3 See the amendment of July 25, 2002 (Paper No. 12; pages 1-2).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007