Appeal No. 2006-2375
Application No. 10/283,198
the relative SP values of the base coat and clear coat
compositions and that the term "solubility parameter" is not
mentioned in the original specification. Hence, not only is
appellants' argument with respect to SP values not germane to
the claimed subject matter, but "it is not clear that Appellant
had possession at the time of filing of a composite coating film
wherein the basecoat composition has a higher SP value than the
resin of the clearcoat composition" (page 17 of Answer, first
paragraph).
Appellants cite Example 1 and Comparative Example 1 in the
present specification for demonstrating that using at least 65%
by weight of the claimed resin "shows a more excellent
appearance than the coating film obtained in Comparative
Example 1 in which the amount of the above ester is 60% by
weight" (page 10 of Brief, last paragraph). However, we concur
with the examiner that the limited specification showing is
hardly commensurate in scope with the degree of protection
sought by the appealed claims. As noted by the examiner and
acknowledged by appellants, the compositions and resultant
interaction between the two coatings "is very important for
obtaining excellent appearance of the multi-layer coating"
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007