Appeal No. 2005-0359
Application No. 09/333,917
We affirm this rejection for the reasons well stated in the
answer. Because we are in complete agreement with the
examiner’s factual findings and legal conclusions, we adopt them
as our own and add the following comments primarily for
emphasis.2,3
Hari describes a polymerizable, cold-setting, reactive
(meth)acrylate system for conductive floor coatings, wherein the
system contains:
(A) a monomeric component consisting essentially of
(meth)acrylate and/or other monomers, >50-100% by wt.,
0-100% by wt. methyl (meth)acrylate
0-100% by wt. C2-C4 (meth)acrylate
0-50% by wt. ≥C5 (meth)acrylate
0-100% by wt. polyhydric (meth)acrylates and comonomers
including the following:
also been withdrawn. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957).
2 The appellants submit that each of appealed claims 3, 4,
7, 8, 10, 13, 17, and 18 stands or falls separately from
appealed claim 1. (Appeal brief at 4.) Accordingly, we group
the appealed claims as follows: (i) claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, and
14-16; (ii) claim 3; (iii) claim 4; (iv) claim 7; (v) claim 8;
(vi) claim 10; (vii) claim 13; (viii) claim 13; (ix) claim 17;
and (x) claim 18. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003)(effective Apr. 21,
1995).
3 We also incorporate by reference the relevant reasoning
set forth in the prior decision by this Board. Ex parte Quis,
Appeal No. 2002-1736 (Bd. of Pat. App. & Inter., Feb. 27, 2003),
reh’g denied (Aug. 21, 2003)(unpublished).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007