Appeal No. 2005-0898
Application No. 10/047,527
carboxylic functional groups and (b) a beta hydroxyalkylamide
curing agent, as well as a phenolic antioxidant. As recognized
by the examiner, neither Geary nor Chasser discloses the
particular phenolic antioxidant presently claimed, namely, 2,6-
di-tert-butyl-4-methyl-phenol. However, as explained by the
examiner, Nakae teaches the claimed phenolic antioxidant as
one of five preferred phenolic antioxidants, which preferred list
also includes the phenolic antioxidant disclosed by Geary and
Chasser (Irganox® 1076). Accordingly, based on the collective
teachings of the applied references, we find that the examiner
has drawn the proper legal conclusion that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to substitute
the presently claimed phenolic antioxidant for the one disclosed
in Geary and Chasser. We agree with the examiner that, based on
the collective teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have reasonably expected that use of the
presently claimed phenolic antioxidant in the compositions of
Geary and Chasser would produce coatings having improved blocking
resistance and melt processability.
The principal argument advanced by appellants is that since
"Nakae discloses a different powder coating composition relying
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007