Appeal No. 2006-2375
Application No. 10/283,198
(b) claims 8-11, 13, 15-21, and 25-27 over Schwarte in view
of Bigley and De Pauw;
(c) claims 8-13, 15, and 18-28 over Berdeke in view of
Bigley and De Pauw; and
(d) claims 14, 29, and 30 over Berdeke in view of Bigley,
De Pauw, and Nishi.
Appellants have not separately argued any particular claim
on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 8.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability, as well as the specification and declaration
data relied upon in support thereof. However, we are in
complete agreement with the examiner that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior
art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
There is no dispute that the primary references, Jouck,
Schwarte, and Berdeke, disclose, like appellants, a composite
coating film comprising a base coat comprising a resin emulsion
obtained by emulsion polymerization of an α,β-ethylenically
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007