Appeal 2007-2133
Application 10/790,502
33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971), and would
recognized Appellants were in possession of the claimed inventions
encompassed by the claims at the time the Application was filed. See, e.g.,
Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, at 1175-76, 37 USPQ2d at 1581, 1583-584 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262-64, 191 USPQ 90, 96-97
(CCPA 1976)).
Therefore, in the absence of a prima facie case of non-compliance
with §§ 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, and second
paragraph, we reverse the grounds of rejection based on these statutory
provisions.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact from Pellegri, Siebert,
McGinniss, and Canfield (Answer 4-7), to which we add the following.
Pellegri would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art coating a
fuel cell plate with a layer of chemically resistant and electrically non-
conductive coating, wherein the coating is prepared from a liquid reactive
precursor coating composition containing epoxy resins and aromatic
polyamine hardeners, that is, crosslinking agents, which is applied to the
plate by brushing and the coated plate cured in an oven at 100°C for five
hours to obtain a hardened resin coating (Pellegri, e.g., col. 2, ll. 50-59;
col. 4, ll. 2-12, 25-31 and 44-50; and col. 7, ll. 31-40).
We find Siebert would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this
art a liquid polymer composition containing an epoxy resin, which can be
diglycidyl ethers of polyols, that is, containing an average of two epoxide
groups; a liquid carboxylic acid terminated polymer, which can be
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013