Appeal No. 2006-2375
Application No. 10/283,198
(page 5 of Brief, fourth paragraph). While the specification
example utilizes a single clear coat composition, claim 8 on
appeal encompasses clear coat compositions that may be a
"combination of an acrylic resin and/or polyester resin and an
amino resin and/or isocyanate, or acrylic resins and/or
polyester resins having a carboxylic acid-epoxy curing system."
As such, appellants' specification data falls far short of
establishing that composite coating films containing at least
65% by weight of the claimed resin in the base coat exhibits
excellent appearance when in combination with clear coats having
the myriad of compositions within the scope of the appealed
claims. Moreover, appellants have not demonstrated that the
specification results would be considered truly unexpected by
one of ordinary skill in the art. As for appellants' Rule 1.132
Declaration that was presented earlier in prosecution against
references no longer applied by the examiner, the same criticism
applies, notwithstanding appellants' statement that the
Declaration represents a comparison to closer prior art than
that presently applied.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, it is our judgment that the evidence of
obviousness presented by the examiner outweighs the evidence of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007