Appeal 2007-0158
Application 10/415,202
Specification for limiting the claimed invention to a coating material in
which components (A) and (B) are physically separated. For example, the
Specification discloses that “for the multicomponent systems of the
invention, the curing component (A) and the binder component (B) are not
mixed with one another until shortly before application” (Specification 11:1-
4). However, the Specification does not disclose that upon mixing
components (A) and (B), the aqueous coating material is no longer a “multi-
component system.” In fact, in Example 1 of the Specification, an inventive
two-component coating material is prepared by combining all curing and
binder components. As pointed out by the Examiner “[m]ost epoxy
compositions are capable of being one-component or multi-component.
Furthermore, two-component compositions essentially become one-
component systems at the time of application and curing. The separation of
these materials is merely a mechanism of controlling shelf-life” (Answer
13).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has failed to establish that the
term “multi-component system” patentably distinguishes over the mixture of
materials disclosed in Elmore (see Finding of Fact 10.) The rejection of
claim 3 as obvious in view of Elmore is affirmed.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 12, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Sweet is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Gunter is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Elmore is reversed; and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013