Appeal 2007-0416
Application 10/634,330
color coating composition, which may be different than the color
composition of the first layer, and, furthermore, the second layer may also
contain an adhesion-promoting composition different than the claimed B)
composition.
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner and those given above, we
will also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2, 4-8, 10, and 11
over Shiraishi in view of Ozawa and Hellmann, as well as the § 103
rejection of claims 9 and 16 over the additional teachings of Heaps and
Corcoran. We note that Appellants do not present a separate substantive
argument with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 16.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013