Appeal 2006-2197
Application 10/068,824
established that anionic polyurethane dispersion provides unexpected results over
other known polyurethane dispersions used in combination with acetoacetylated
polyvinyl alcohol.7 The rejection of claim 38 is affirmed for the reasons set forth
above and by the Examiner.
In summary we affirm each of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§§§ 102, 103 and 112, ¶ 1.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7 Appellant’s reliance on evidence provided in the form of declarations and
examples contained in the present specification are not persuasive for the reason
set forth in the discussion of the rejections over the Kawano reference. As stated
above, this evidence is not limited to the scope of the appealed claims. This is
especially true with regard to claim 38 because the combination of acetoacetylated
polyvinyl alcohol and anionic polyurethane dispersion has not been compared to
the closest prior art of Niu.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007