Appeal 2007-0158
Application 10/415,202
interpreted as a “solid, particulated coating material having a plurality of
components in admixture in each particle.” We further find that the facts and
reasons relied on by Appellant establish a chemical and physical difference
between the claimed “powder coating material” dispersion and the prior art
“solid epoxy resin” dispersions. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie showing of anticipation. See In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that "each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference."). The rejections of the claims as
anticipated by Sweet, Gunter, and Elmore are reversed.
II. 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?
Appellant argues that “[c]laim 3 is patentable over the Elmore patent
because the Elmore patent fails to disclose or suggest a multicomponent
system (as that term is used in the present claim and specification) or a
system comprising both a solid epoxy dispersion in one component and a
liquid epoxy in a second component” (Br. 7).
The patentability analysis begins with the legal question “what is the
invention claimed?” See Panduit v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082,
1093, 227 USPQ 337, 344 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the claimed
invention is directed to an aqueous coating material comprising two
components: a curing component and a binder component. The claim
language itself does not preclude the components from being mixed.
Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s contention, we see no basis in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013