Appeal No. 2004-1869
Application No. 09/738,591
the polymer film is polyester. It appears Appellant considers one of ordinary skill in the art to
have the knowledge to determine what types of coatings to utilize that also provide the desired
results of the claimed process of increased wettability of the surface. Similarly, Linford teaches a
wide variety of polymers for coating the silica particulates, some of which are hydrophilic
(Linford, col. 4, ll. 60-67) and one skilled in the art would have had the requisite knowledge
needed to determine what type of polymer to utilize for coating the silica particulates to ensure
adequate adhesion to the polymer film and provide the desired hydrophilic nature of the surface
in order to increase the wettability of the film. Appellant has not convinced us that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have had the required knowledge to select an appropriate
polymer for coating the silica particulates.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of claim 7 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
Obviousness of Claims 21 and 25
The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 25 as obvious over Bentley in view of Kaneko and
further in view of Hayakawa. The claims stand or fall together (Brief, p. 3). We select claim 21
to represent the issues on appeal in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003).
Claim 21 further limits claim 1 to require that the plurality of polar particulates are one of
alumina, zirconia, wollastonite, talc, and titanium dioxide.
The Examiner finds that Bentley and Kaneko are silent towards applying polar
particulates from one of the claimed list. The Examiner cites Hayakawa for its teaching of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007