Appeal 2007-0158
Application 10/415,202
4. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elmore.
ISSUES
I. The Examiner contends that prior art solid epoxy resins are
inherently in powder form and, therefore, meet the claim limitation of a
“powder coating material.” Appellant contends that the claimed powder
coating compositions are chemically and physically distinct from the prior
art solid epoxy resins. The issue before us is: Has Appellant provided
sufficient evidence to overcome the Examiner’s finding that Sweet, Gunter,
and Elmore inherently disclose powder coating materials?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
II. The Examiner contends that Appellant’s aqueous coating material
would have been obvious in view of Elmore’s disclosure of a mixture
containing the same components. Appellant contends that the recitation of a
“multicomponent system” in claim 3 patentably distinguishes over Elmore.
The issue for us to decide is: Has Appellant shown that the claim language
should be narrowly construed as limited to a coating material in which the
curing component and binder component are physically separated?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
negative.
RELEVANT FINDINGS OF FACT
Claim Construction
1) “A dispersion is a mixture of particles suspended in a liquid.”
Kirk‑Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Dispersions
(2003).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013