Appeal No. 2007-1487
Application 09/562,632
The evidence with respect to two-part polyurethane coating
compositions containing an epoxy functional silane coupling agent set forth
in Morikawa’s Table 6 does not support Appellants’ contention that such
coupling agents do not improve bond strength. Indeed, there is no side-by-
side comparison of compositions with and without such coupling agents
which would provide the supporting evidence, as the Examiner argues, and
there is no disclosure of the contribution of the individual components of the
tested compounds to the demonstrated bond strength. Cf., e.g., In re Heyna,
360 F.2d 222, 228, 149 USPQ 692, 697 (CCPA 1966); In re Dunn, 349 F.2d
433, 439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965) (“[W]e do not feel it an
unreasonable burden on appellants to require comparative examples relied
on for non-obviousness to be truly comparative. The cause and effect sought
to be proven is lost here in the welter of unfixed variables.”). Thus, on this
record, one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably found in
Morikawa the teachings that the epoxy functional silane coupling agents
improve workability, bond strength, and adhesion of two-part polyurethane
coating compositions.
We agree with Appellants that the comparisons between compositions
with and without an epoxy functional silane component in Examples 1-4 of
the Specification demonstrate “better” crosshatch adhesion and resistance to
blistering. In view of the expectation of an improvement in bond strength
and adhesion from the teachings of Morikawa, Appellants have the burden
to submit an explanation or evidence with respect to the practical
to obtain and compare prior art products. [Footnote and citation
omitted.]
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013