Appeal No. 2006-3248 Page 8
Application No. 10/617,585
After fully considering the record before us, it is our view that Barkac does not describe
a composition that meets all the limitations of the claims.
Barkac requires the presence of a beta-hydroxyalkylamide crosslinking agent in
his composition. Barkac, Abstract; column 3, line 1; column 16, lines 18-35. There is
no disclosure of a crosslinking component selected from “polyisocyanate, polyamine,
ketimine, melamine, epoxy, polyacid and a combination thereof” as required by claim 1.
Consequently, as Appellants have urged, Barkac does not anticipate the claimed
subject matter.
As a challenge to this position, the Examiner argues that Barkac teaches “a
crosslinking agent structure XII (col. 16, line 25-35) which comprises secondary amine
structures (urethane).” Answer, page 4. The significance of this teaching is not
explained, but we infer that the Examiner intended to state that this feature met the
claimed “crosslinking component” when the component contained a “polyamine.” We
do not find this disclosure relevant to the claimed subject matter. The “urethane”
described in Barkac is a “polyurethane” that serves as a “second polycarboxylic acid
functional material” that can optionally be included in the thermosetting acrylate
composition. Barkac, column 15, lines 5-10; column 16, lines 5-8. This polyurethane
material is not the same acrylate polymer of Barkac that the Examiner states to
anticipate the claims.
The Examiner also states that Barkac discloses a “polycaroxylic [sic] acid
functional polymer comprising glycidal (epoxy) functionalities (col. 12, line 25)”, but did
not explain the relevance of this disclosure to the claimed subject matter. Answer, page
4. The epoxy described by Barkac serves as an “initiator” of the polymerization
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007