Appeal No. 2006-0231 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/234,253
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(mailed October 1, 2004) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
the Brief (filed July 06, 2004) for the Appellants’ arguments there against.
We initially note that Appellants assert that for purposes of appeal the claims
stand or fall together. (Brief, p. 4). We select claim 44 as representative of the
appealed claims and will limit our discussion thereto.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and the
Examiner, we affirm for the reasons advanced by the Examiner and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue “that polyurethane and polyester coatings are unknown as
paper coatings and that therefore there is no motivation provided to combine the two
references in order to solve the present problem.” (Brief, p. 4). Appellants also present
a Declaration under Rule 132 by Mr. David Vidal, which states that polyurethane and
polyester coatings are unknown as paper coatings.2 (Brief,
p. 4).
2 The declaration was submitted on February 15, 2002.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007