Appeal No. 2006-3248 Page 7
Application No. 10/617,585
polymerization to prove the carboxylic acid functionality. Id., column 10, lines 26-28 and
lines 54-55.
The Examiner rejects the claims over Barkac, stating that the patent discloses a
polycarboxylic acid functional polymer that meets the requirements of the claims.
Barkae [sic] et al. (abstract; col. 1, line 25-50; col. 21, line 15 to col. 22,
line 28) disclose a coatings composition and in example B, and Table 1,
disclose a polycarboxylic acid functional polymer having Mw of 3550, and
a MWD [sic] 1.25, and a crosslinking agent structure XII (col. 16, line 25-
35) which comprises secondary amine structures (urethane). … Barkae
[sic] et al. (col. 9, line 32-63) clearly shows a composition comprising both
a functional acrylate monomers and functional methacrylate monomers.
Answer, page 4.
Appellants argue that “[a] critical limitation in the present claims … is that
the methacrylate monomers must be functional and the acrylate monomers must
be non-functional. Barkac neither teaches nor suggests this essential
requirement.” Brief, page 7. They also contend that “[t]he crosslinking
components of the present claims are selected from polyisocyanate, polyamine,
ketimine, melamine, epoxy, and polyacid, as well as mixtures of them. … There
are no amide crosslinking components in the present claims” as required in
Barkac’s composition. Id., page 8. Appellants did not challenge the Examiner’s
conclusion that the composition’s other claimed characteristics were met by
Barkac, i.e., number of crosslinkable groups, molecular weight, and
polydispersity.
To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be
found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v.
Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007