Appeal 2007-3256 Application 10/900,619 13) According to Munro, the coatings may include primers, basecoats and topcoats (Munro, ¶ [0040]). In particular, Munro discloses an embodiment in which the coating that includes the color effect colorant is a basecoat, over which is applied a clearcoat that does not contain the colorant (Munro, ¶ [0044]). 14) Munro discloses that the liquid or powder slurry coatings of the invention can be applied to the surface to be coated by any suitable coating process (Munro, ¶ [0047]). ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS As an initial matter, we note that Appellants have not presented separate arguments as to any particular claim. Accordingly, we decide this appeal on the basis of claim 1 as to each ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim Interpretation In order to make a proper comparison between the claimed invention and the prior art, the Examiner must first construe the language of the claims. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the present case, the Examiner interprets “tactile effect composition” as referring to “a composition that, when applied to a substrate, produces a desired feel” (Answer 4). The Examiner interprets “color effect composition” as “a composition that imparts a desired color to a coating” (Answer 4). The Examiner also notes that the claims, given their 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013