Appeal 2007-2774
Application 10/285,632
[45] In regard to the first issue, according to Mizuno, the concentration of
melamine-aldehyde acid colloidal solution in the flush solution is in
the range of 1 to 5,000 ppm and the weight of the melamine-aldehyde
acid colloidal solution is 0.1 to 300% of the weight of the surplus
paint (Mizuno at col. 4, ll. 48-60).
[46] Three hundred percent of 5,000 ppm is 15,000 ppm which equates to
1.5 % by weight.
[47] At column 6, line 38, Mizuno describes a simulated used flush
solution having a paint concentration of 2,000 mg/liter of water.
[48] Water has a density of approximately 1 gm/ml at 200 C (see e.g.,
Hackh's CHEMICAL DICTIONARY, fourth ed. at 720).
[49] A solution of 2,000 mg paint/1,000 gm water equates to 0.2% paint by
weight.
Therefore, the Examiner's finding that Mizuno describes a paint
concentration in used flush solution of 1 to 50% by weight appears to be
incorrect (FF 46). If, as it appears, the Examiner's underlying factual
finding, i.e., that Mizuno describes used flush solutions containing 1 to 50%
by weight paint, is incorrect, the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness based thereon cannot stand.
In regard to the second issue, the Examiner has erred in failing to
consider all of the rebuttal evidence submitted by Appellant. Appellant
relied on the disclosure of eight patents, including Mahoney and Mizuno, to
establish that a dirty flush solution used to clean paint application equipment
typically contains less than 1% by volume of paint (FF 39). In essence, the
Examiner found that the pertinent prior art as a whole must be limited to the
prior art applied by the Examiner because that is "the particular prior art
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013