Appeal 2006-2802
Application 10/640,367
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we concur with the Examiner that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the
Answer.
There is no dispute that Lohmer, like Appellant, discloses a method of
treating a solid substrate which comprises first treating the substrate with a reactive
silane and then coating the treated substrate with a hydrophobic compound for the
purpose of effecting water-repellency. As recognized by the Examiner, Lohmer
does not expressly teach that the hydrophobic compound is one of the recited
compounds, e.g., a silicate. However, Lohmer does teach that the hydrophobic
compound can be one which forms ionic, absorptive, and/or covalent bonds with
the silane treated substrate, such as those compounds which “contain a functional
group such as a carboxylate group by, which the bond to the silane derivative is
developed” ([paragraph 0054]).
Gosset, on the other hand, evidences that it was known in the art to render a
substrate water-repellant by treating it with an aqueous solution comprising a
siliconate or an ammonium salt of a copolymer with a carboxyl group.
Accordingly, based on the collective teachings of Lohmer and Gosset, we agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to select the claimed siliconates as suitable hydrophobic compounds in the process
of Lohmer, with the reasonable expectation that the siliconates would enhance the
water-repellency of the Lohmer coating. Also, we concur with the Examiner that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007