Appeal No. 2007-1487
Application 09/562,632
of any of the adhesives AD-A, AD-C, AD-E, AD-F, and AD-G with a
corresponding adhesive composition that does not contain an epoxy
functional silane coupling agent (Answer 6-7).
Appellants acknowledge that “adhesion problems have been observed
with these [prior art] aqueous [two component] [polyurethane] systems after
application on special substrate surfaces, especially untreated metal surfaces
such as aluminum, galvanized steel and car body sheet (USt 1405 steel
sheet)” which “can then lead to undesirable signs of corrosion”
(Specification 2:1-4; see also 1:18-30). Appellants disclose four Examples
in Tables 1-4 and Tables 1a-4a, each involving a comparison between a two-
component polyurethane composition with and without 0.39 to 0.43 parts of
(3-glycidoxypropyl)-trimethoxysilane, as set forth in Tables 1-4, with
respect to crosshatch adhesion and resistance to blistering, as set forth in
Tables 1a-4a (id. 10:28 to 18:10). No evaluation of the test results in Tables
1a-4a is disclosed (id. 12, 14, 16, and 18).
We determine the combined teachings of Kubitza and Morikawa, the
scope of which we determined above, provide convincing evidence
supporting the Examiner’s case that the claimed composition encompassed
by claims 1 and 8, as we interpreted these claims above, would have been
prima facie obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the coating arts familiar
with the two-component polyurethane coating compositions. We are not
convinced of error in the Examiner’s position by Appellants’ contentions.
We are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this art would have
combined Kubitza and Morikawa because Morikawa teaches that bonding,
workability, and adhesion are improved in a two-part polyurethane coating
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013