Appeal 2006-2950
Application 10/036,126
NMP<Limitation of instant Claims: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 11-
12>(Col-7, Lines : 25-53, Col-12, Table 1. The coating
compositions given in Table-1(Col-12) would meet the ratio
limitations in instant claims 2-3. NMP, glycerol, sorbitol and
polysaccharides would meet the limitation of neutral-charge
conductivity enhancers in the instant claim-1.
(iii). A latex polymer binder having hydrophilic functionality
such as copolymers of vinylidene fluoride and unsaturated
carboxylic acid (Col-6, Lines: 55-60, Col-7, lines: 6-10, Col-9,
Lines: 5-14, Col-12, Table-1)
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ a gelatin or gelatin derivative in the
electrically conductive antistatic coating composition of the type described
in Muys. On this record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
For the findings of fact set forth in the Answer and below, we concur
with the Examiner that the combined disclosures of Muys and Gardener
would have suggested employing, inter alia, gelatins or gelatin derivatives
as a binder for the antistatic coating composition of the type described in
Muys. As indicated supra, there is no dispute that the latex polymer
described in Muys is used as a binder. Indeed, the Appellants have
acknowledged that “Muys et al. uses the latex polymer (not gelatin) to
disperse the conductive particles (col. 3, ll. 51-55) and to provide suitable
adhesion between the polyester film support (col. 6, ll. 14-18) and overlying
layers (Br. 3).” Also, there is no doubt that the latex polymer is hydrophilic.
Muys teaches that the latex polymer employed has hydrophilic functionality
as indicated supra. The Appellants have also acknowledged that “Muys et
al. is directed to providing ‘aqueous’ formulations in which the latex binder
is dispersed (Col., lines 42-64) (Br. 4).” Compare this description with the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013