Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200
1 B) The Rejection of Claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
2 Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
3 unpatentable over De Keyser in view of at least one of Marten,
4 Tesch, and Waddill, further in view of Dubois.
5 Claims 34 reads as follows:
6 The method of claim 27 wherein the curative is a carboxyl-
7 terminated polyester resin.
8 The examiner has found that it would have been obvious to use
9 a carboxyl-terminated polyester resin as a curative instead of a
10 compound containing at least two primary or secondary amine
11 hydrogen atoms in view of Dubois’ discussion of suitable curing
12 agents for epoxy. (Office Action, October 31, 2003, pages 6-7).
13 The appellant urges that Dubois cannot be combined with De
14 Keyser because the Dubois reference contemplates solvents.
15 This argument is unpersuasive. Dubois expressly states that
16 its resins may be cured by any suitable curing agent for curing
17 epoxy resins. (column 18, lines 4-6). Dubois description is not
18 limited by the solvent or solventless nature of the final product.
19 Dubois teaches the equivalence of the carboxyl terminated
20 polyester of the claim.
21 Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
22
and would be inconsistent with the duty imposed by § 1.56.
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007