Appeal 2007-0504
Application 10/700,078
composition inherently has scrub resistance by virtue of the “hardness” of
the coating.
In the alternative, it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize
the “hardness” of the coating to provide a more durable coating in view of
Friel’s disclosure that hardness is an important physical property. Friel
recognizes “hardness” as an art recognized result effective variable such that
it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop
workable or even optimum ranges for such art-recognized, result-effective
parameters. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-
1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219
(CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955).
From the foregoing, the Examiner established a prima facie case of
anticipation under § 102(b) or obviousness under § 103(a) of claims 1-5 and
7 over Friel, which Appellants have not sufficiently rebutted. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s §§ 102(b)/103(a) rejections of claims 1-5 and 7.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER FRIEL
Appellants do not separately argue the § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 6 over Friel. Instead, Appellants rely on their arguments made with
respect to the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/103(a) rejections which include
independent claims 1 and 2 from which claim 6 depends.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the
§§ 102(b)/103(a) rejections for the reasons given above. Accordingly, we
affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 6 over Friel.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013