Appeal No. 2006-0483
Application 09/860,272
Appellants further submit that “the shells bind together to fix the array” (reply brief, pages 5-6).
We cannot agree.
We find that Kumacheva would have disclosed that the Tg “of the shell resin is about 20°
to about 80° C. lower than the glass transition temperature of the core resin” (e.g., [0030]
through [0034]; see also [0016]-[0017]. ), and thus, would be expected to exhibit phase
segregation as specified in appealed claim 1. Kumacheva would have taught that the core/shell
particles are organized into a closely packed but loosely held three-dimensional array of particles
by reducing the bulk volume of latex suspension systems containing the particles by, among
others, evaporation, which under certain conditions can result in, for example, an “HCP” crystal
structure, the dried coating then heated to fix the particles in the array (e.g., [0028]-[0029]) and
Example 1, [0090] through [0092]). We interpret “HCP” to mean “hexagonal close packed”
(see, e.g., specification, page 8, ll. 12-16). Accordingly, we find that Kumacheva would have
disclosed a coating composition comprising dispersed particles which form a geometrically
ordered array when the coating is applied, and thus falling within appealed claim 1. See Exxon
Chemical Pats., 64 F.3d at 1555-58, 1558, 35 USPQ2d at 1802-05, 1804.
Appellants argue all of the grounds of rejection under § 102(b) and § 103(a) involving
Nguyen as a group (brief, pages 8-9; reply brief, page 6). Appellants submit that the dispersion
of the water insoluble polymer particles in water soluble polymers taught by Nguyen fixes the
water insoluble particles in place, and thus the dried particles would not dissipate sound as
specified in appealed claim 1 (id.). We cannot agree. We find that Nguyen would have taught
“[a] dried film reinforced with coalescable water insoluble polymers particles which are
substantially non-coalesced” produced from stable aqueous dispersions that are coated on a
surface and dried, the coalescable water insoluble polymer particles reinforce the film and absorb
stress and strain during and after film formation (e.g., abstract, col. 2, ll. 35-64, col. 4, l. 45, to
col. 5, l. 12, and col. 7, l. 33, to col. 9, l. 7). We note in this respect that appellants disclose in
the written description in the specification that the particles encompassed by appealed claim 1
are formed into “substantially uncoalesced film . . . upon drying” which dissipates energy (e.g.,
page 8, l. 28, to page 9, l. 9). Thus, we find that Nguyen would have disclosed coating
compositions falling within appealed claim 1 as we interpreted this claim above.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007