Appeal No. 2004-0977
Application No. 10/043,762
With regard to appellants’ argument that the applied art
does not suggest predicting the outdoor durability of a first
coating relative to at least one other set of coatings, we find
that claim 1 recites “a method for predicting the outdoor
durability of a first coating relative to the outdoor durability
of at least one other of a set of coatings.” Brief, pages 5-6.
Again, all that is required is a method of conducting tests on
different coatings and comparing the results of such tests with
each other. As pointed on pages 5-6 of the answer, the examiner
clearly explains how Okazaki teaches the concept of conducting
tests on different coatings and comparing the results of such
tests with each other. Hence, this aspect of the claimed
invention is suggested by Okazaki.
Finally, appellants argue that Dudler “merely discloses
that the use of chemiluminescence can be executed on samples
exposed for varying times in different artificial weather
instruments,” and that Dudler does not teach that
chemiluminescence scanning can be used to predict the outdoor
durability of a coating. Brief, page 6. Appellants state that,
to the contrary, Dudler states that extrapolation is not yet
achievable, and refers to the Abstract of Dudler.
On pages 8-9 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and states
that extrapolation is not what is being claimed. We agree for
the reasons discussed above regarding the word “predicting”. We
reiterate that what is claimed is a method that involves
conducting chemiluminescence tests on different coatings and
making a comparison of the results in order to determine outdoor
durability of such coatings as compared with each other.
As pointed by the examiner on page 9, Dudler teaches aging
organic coatings, analyzing aged coatings using
chemiluminescence testing, and comparing the results to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007