Appeal 2007-0416
Application 10/634,330
We will also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3,
12-15, 17, and 18 over Shiraishi in view of Ozawa. The composition of
Shiraishi can be used as a base paint on a plastic substrate and comprises the
presently claimed composition comprising a binder resin, ethylene vinyl
acetate copolymer, chlorinated polyolefin, pigments, solvents, and paint
auxiliaries. Although Shiraishi does not teach the inclusion of the claimed
chlorinated rubber, we agree with the Examiner that Ozawa evidences the
obviousness of adding a chlorinated rubber to the Shiraishi composition.
Since Shiraishi teaches that the composition can be used as a base paint, we
are convinced that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to add an additional paint layer on the base paint of Shiraishi, as is
well-known in the art and evidenced by Hellmann. Appellants maintain that
Shiraishi does not show or suggest the claimed method wherein “the first
basecoat contains the adhesion promoting composition of ethylene vinyl
acetate copolymer, chlorinated rubber and chlorinated polyolefin and the
second layer is identical to the first layer but does not contain the adhesion
promoting composition” (principal Br. 14-15). However, Appellants’
argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language on appeal.
The claims do not require that the second layer is identical to the first layer
with the exception of the adhesion promoting composition. For instance,
claim 2 simply recites “subsequently applying a layer of a colour-and/or
effect-imparting coating composition which does not contain the adhesion-
promoting composition B).” The claimed second layer may comprise any
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013