Appeal No. 2004-2031
Application No. 09/773,286
Appellants set forth their arguments regarding this
rejection on pages 7-9 of the brief, and also provide additional
arguments in the reply brief on pages 2-4.
Claim 19 recites the “method of claim 17 wherein the
mixture further comprises a polyepoxide”. The examiner relies
on Muenstermann in view of Barron for teaching this aspect of
claim 19. The examiner refers to the abstract and columns 1 and
2 of Barron, where it is disclosed that polyurea polymers
prepared from formulations including a polyepoxide can have good
heat stability and good physical properties, and the resultant
polyurea polymers can withstand higher temperatures than
conventional polyurea polymers without blistering. Hence, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
incorporated a polyepoxide into the composition of Muenstermann
in view of the teachings in Barron.
Beginning on page 8 of the brief, appellants argue that the
examiner has not provided a proper motivation for combining
Muenstermann in view of Barron, and provide reasons therein.
We do not agree, as Barron clearly teaches that polyurea
polymers prepared from formulations including a polyepoxide can
have good heat stability and good physical properties, and the
resultant polyurea polymers can withstand higher temperatures
than conventional polyurea polymers without blistering. We note
that obviousness can be established by combining or modifying
the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention
where there is some teaching, suggesting, or motivation to do so
found either in the reference or in the knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In view of the above, we also affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 19, 33, 34, and 36-45.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007