Appeal 2007-2133
Application 10/790,502
We cannot agree with Appellants that the claimed invention has the
advantage that curing with infrared radiation will not warp a graphite
composite fuel cell as set forth in the Specification at page 6, l. 29, to page 7,
l. 1 (Br. 9; Reply Br. 5-6). We pointed out above that the cited Specification
passage pertains to high energy radiation curing, and not thermal curing by
infrared radiation. Further, as Appellants recognize, Pellegri teaches thermal
curing of an epoxy resin coating on a graphite containing fuel cell plate
without warping the plate. We also cannot agree with Appellants’
contention the claims specifying thickness are patentable because
Appellants’ reason for selecting the claimed thickness is not that taught by
the references (Br. 11 and 12; Reply Br. 6-7 and 8). The applied prior art
renders these claims unpatentable even if the references do not disclose the
same reasons for arriving at the coating thicknesses as Appellants. See In re
Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190 USPQ 425, 428, (CCPA 1976) (“[I]t is
sufficient here that [the reference] clearly suggests doing what appellants
have done.”); see also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1429-430, 40 USPQ2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir, 1996) (citing In re Dillon,
919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc)).
We agree with the Examiner that on this record, and contrary to
Appellants’ contentions, the limitation “consisting essentially of an epoxy
nitrile resin ” does not preclude additional ingredients such as an “amine” in
the coating composition used to prepare the product of claim 36 (Br. 12;
Reply Br. 7) for several reasons. First, as we discussed above, the epoxy
nitrile resin compositions as claimed include polyamines for crosslinking
purposes as disclosed in the Specification. And, second, as we discussed
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013