Appeal 2006-2159 Application 09/862,234 al; as liquids at room temperature and used a coating composition of Rosenberry et al as top wear layer composition” (id.). We disagree. Rosenberry is directed to an oligomer that is liquid at room temperature, and this oligomer with a diluent can be used as a coating composition to form a wear layer on floor coverings (col. 1, ll. 16-19; and col. 2, ll. 26-35). However, the Examiner has failed to establish how this one (wear) layer could be coated at room temperature in the Simpson process, where Simpson teaches use of a melt process at high temperatures such as 80 to 120ºC. for the remaining layers (Simpson, col. 13, ll. 42-45). The Examiner has further failed to explain how the multi-cavity slot die coater taught by Simpson would function with one coating at room temperature for the oligomer of Rosenberry when all the teachings of Simpson relate to higher temperatures for the required fluidity. The claims require that the fluid coating compositions are applied simultaneously (Br. 20). As discussed above, we fail to find any factual support for the Examiner’s finding that Simpson and Sartor teach the use of thinners that can be used with 100% solids compositions without heating to achieve the fluidity necessary for processing. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Therefore we REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 16-19, 25, 44, 48, 56, 57, 59-64, 66-70, and 72-74 over Simpson in view of Sartor and Rosenberry. We also REVERSE the rejection of claims 11, 26, 29, 33-39, 55, 58, 65 and 71 over Simpson in view of Sartor, Rosenberry and Schirmer. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007