Appeal 2007-1223
Application 10/007,149
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and
the Examiner, we affirm the rejections for the reasons advanced by the Examiner
and add the following primarily for emphasis.
Christie describes powder coatings comprising film forming resins and from
0.05-5% by weight of an abrasion resistant additive such as alumina (col. 1, ll.
45-63). Suitable film forming resins include acrylic polymers, polyester polymers
and polyurethane polymers (col. 2, 11. 13-20). Christie discloses the compositions
may also comprise aluminum trihydroxide as a filler having a hardness of less than
about 7 on the Mohs’ scale and having a refractive index of 1.50-1.57 which is
disclosed to be the same as many synthetic film forming resins (col. 2, ll. 22-38).
Thus, the difference between the refractive index of the particles and the resin
would be less than one as required by claim 1. Christie discloses the abrasion
resistant additives can be calcined alumina (ground and ungrounded) and tabular
alumina (col. 1, ll. 50-52). The ungrounded calcined aluminum preferably has a
median particle size of at least about 5.5 µm. The tabular alumina may be milled
and formed into spheres (col. 3, 11. 23-65). Christie discloses the abrasion
resistant additives preferably have a median particle size ranging from 3-250 µm
(col. 3, l. 68-col. 4, l. 5).
The Examiner has addressed the Appellants’ separate arguments regarding
the various claims in the Answer. Appellants have not specifically refuted many of
the positions advanced by the Examiner in a responsive Brief. For example, the
Appellants have not refuted the Examiner’s assertion that aluminum trihydroxide
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013