Appeal 2006-2159
Application 09/862,234
i.e., non-fluid at room temperature (Decl. 3: ¶ 10; Simpson, col. 13, ll. 28-
45, and Examples 1-5). We determine that Simpson teaches that the
combination of the solid and liquid components must be mixed together at
sufficient temperature and shear to achieve dispersive mixing, with the fluid
system held at a temperature that retains the required fluidity for the
fabrication of the final product, generally at 80 to 120șC (col. 13, ll. 35-45),
in contrast to Appellants’ process where the 100% solids composition has
the required viscosity at room temperature (Specification 10, 17 and 19).
We also determine that Sartor does not remedy the deficiency of
Simpson. Sartor merely reinforces the teachings of Simpson, namely that
the viscosity is important in the coating process and this viscosity can be
controlled by the addition of thinners (Sartor, col. 11, ll. 47-57; col. 12, ll. 9-
17; and Simpson, col. 12, ll. 6-14). Although Simpson teaches that the
addition of liquids (thinners) can be used to lower the temperature needed to
obtain the viscosity necessary for good processing (col. 12, ll. 12-14), there
is no teaching or suggestion in either Simpson or Sartor that such thinners
could be added until the resins were fluid at room temperature. See
Simpson, col. 13, ll. 42-45.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief, we determine
that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in
view of the reference evidence. Therefore we cannot sustain the rejection
over Simpson in view of Sartor for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16-19, 25,
26, 29, 33-39, 44, 48 and 55-74.
However, the rejection of claims 41-43, 46, 47, 49 and 50 present a
different issue since these claims do not require that the 100% solids
composition be fluid at room temperature. As correctly found by the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007