Appeal 2007-2521
Reexamination 90/007,130
1 following the technique described by Yasuda at p. 5, l. 14-18 are different
2 than those claimed by Patentees.
3 In this regard, we note that Patentees have referred to another prior art
4 publication, Japan Patent Publication 63-2353813 (Kawanishi) as identifying
5 “two products falling with the range of [Yasuda’s] …diamides.” Appeal
6 Brief, p. 10. Those products were identified as Kawanishi Comparative
7 Examples 11 and 12. Appeal Brief, p. 10. The diamides in those examples
8 were made by mixing the three reactants and heating without xylene or any
9 other additive. Kawanishi, p. 8-9, Comparative Production Examples 6 and
10 7.
11 Patentees have not established that one having ordinary skill in the art
12 (1) would not have followed Yasuda’s technique as described on page 5 (see
13 also the description at page 1, lines 5-11) or (2) would have understood
14 Yasuda’s disclosure to require the use of xylene.
15 We affirm the rejection of Claim 1 and with it the rejection of Claims
16 2-3 and 16-18.
17 Claim 4
18 Yasuda describes using the rheological agents as paint additives. E.g.,
19 Yasuda, p. 9, l. 15-18. The Examiner found that since the rheological agents
20 described by Yasuda are the same as those claimed, the paints made using
21 those agents would inherently demonstrate “improved intercoat adhesion.”
22 Patentees argue that “improved intercoat adhesion” is not inherent in
23 Yasuda’s compounds. Relying on Kawanishi, Patentees assert that the
24 Yasuda additives are inoperative with regard to intercoat adhesion. Appeal
3 All page references to Kawanishi are to the translation of record.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013