Appeal 2006-2159
Application 09/862,234
Examiner (Answer 3), Simpson teaches the use of a multi-cavity slot die
coater (col. 11, ll. 59-65). Appellants argue that Sartor fails to teach the
point where the topcoats are applied (Br. 17) while the Examiner finds that
Sartor teach applying the coatings at a point opposite where the substrate is
between two adjacent supports (Answer 6). Regardless of the interpretation
of Sartor, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants have admitted that
multi-cavity slot die coaters were known in the art, as evidenced by Most,
who teaches applying the coating at the same point as required by the above
noted claims (Answer 13; Specification 9; see Most, Fig. 11). Therefore we
agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of claims 41-43, 46, 47, 49
and 50 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of
the disclosure and teachings of Simpson, Sartor and Most.
B. The Rejections including Rosenberry and Schirmer
The Examiner additionally relies on Schirmer for the teaching that
latex is suitable for making a foamable layer of a floor covering by use of a
co-extrusion process (Answer 10). Therefore Schirmer does not remedy the
deficiency discussed above with respect to the combination of Simpson and
Sartor against any claims with the limitation of a 100% solids composition
being fluid at room temperature.
The Examiner applies Rosenberry for the teaching of advantageous
results for a wear layer for a floor covering, where the layer comprises a
100% solids coating composition which is liquid at room temperature, a
reactive monomer, and a photoinitiator (Answer 9). From this finding, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to “have formulated
polymer and monomer/non-volatile liquid plasticizers systems of Simpson et
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007