Appeal Number: 2005-2231 Page 2
Application Number: 09/952,931
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to a coating composition. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A coating composition comprising an ultraviolet-polymerizable
formulation and from 5 to 50% by volume of an aluminum trihydrate filler
with a particle size from 1 to 10 mircometers, wherein said composition
can allow a cure of greater thickness compared to a composition that is the
same except that the filler is formed of calcium carbonate or silica.
The Examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Caul et al. (Caul) 4,588,419 May 13, 1986
Tumey et al. (Tumey) 4,836,832 Jun. 06, 1989
Buchanan et al. (Buchanan) 4,927,431 May 23, 1990
Kirk et al. (Kirk) 5,236,472 Aug. 17, 1993
Culler 5,368,619 Nov. 29, 1994
Claims 1-13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kirk, Buchanan, Caul, or Tumey each in view of Culler.
Appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall together and group claims 6-13, and
15 separately from claims 1-5 and 16 (Brief, § VII). To the extent that the groups are argued
separately, we will consider them separately. We select claim 6 to represent the issues on appeal
with regard to the first group and claim 1 to represent the issues on appeal with regard to the
second group.
OPINION
Claims 1 and 6 are directed to a coating composition comprising an ultraviolet-
polymerizable formulation in combination with a filler. Claim 1 limits the filler to aluminum
trihydrate while claim 6 requires the filler to be transparent to ultraviolet light. The specification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007