Appeal 2007-2521
Reexamination 90/007,130
1 Brief, p. 10. In particular, they argue that Kawanishi describes tests of two
2 products which fall within the range of Yasuda’s disclosure --Kawanishi’s
3 Comparative Examples 11 and 12-- “that failed completely on intercoat
4 adhesion grounds.” Appeal Brief, p. 10. These results are said to be shown
5 in Table 5-2 on page 6 of Kawanishi.
6 Kawanishi’s Table 5-2 indicates that intercoat peeling occurred in
7 tests of paints using the additive of Comparative Examples 11 and 12.
8 Kawanishi, p. 16, Table 5-2. Comparative Examples 11 and 12 are blends of
9 xylol and the additives of Comparative Production Examples 6 and 7,
10 respectively. Kawanishi, p. 11, Table 4. Comparative Production Examples
11 6 and 7 are fatty acid diamides made by mixing and heating
12 butylenediamine, 12-hydorxystearic acid and palmitic acid or lauric acid
13 respectively. Palmitic acid is a C16 straight chain saturated fatty acid that is
14 outside the scope of the C6 - C12 fatty acids described by Yasuda.
15 Kawnanishi’s Comparative Production Example 6 and Comparative
16 Example 11 are not relevant to the inherency question.
17 On the other hand, lauric acid is a C12 straight chain saturated fatty
18 acid within the scope of Yasuda’s disclosure. Kawanishi’s Comparative
19 Production Example 7 appears to describe an additive within the scope of
20 Yasuda’s disclosure. Kawanishi, p. 9. Kawanishi reports that intercoat
21 peeling occurred in a test of the paints of Comparative Example 12.
22 Kawanishi, p. 16
23 While the composition of Kawanishi’s Comparative Example 12 may
24 tend to show that certain of Yasuda’s additives will not impart “improved
25 intercoat adhesion,” the example does not prove the properties of other
26 additives within the scope of Yasuda’s small genus. To the extent Patentees’
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013