Appeal No. 2006-0370
Application 09/552,044
2. Claims 40-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness in view of Eversole taken in combination with Heuer.
3. Claims 40-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over, Ludwig.
We have carefully considered the record in light of the
respective positions taken by the examiner and the appellants.
Having done so, we shall reverse the first rejection noted above.
However, we shall affirm the second and third rejections
essentially for the reasons advanced by the examiner.
The basis for our decision follows:
REJECTION 1
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection, it appears
the examiner’s underlying belief in making the rejection is that
“acrylate dispersions” is overly broad terminology. However,
the fact that the language used may be broad in scope does not
necessarily make it indefinite.
As noted by the appellants, their specification indicates
that such binders are known and are commercially available.
Accordingly, the meaning and scope of the term “acrylate
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007