Appeal 2007-3547
Application 10/231,652
composition anticipates and/or would have rendered representative claim 36
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
(Answer 4). On this record, we agree with the Examiner’s anticipation and
obviousness positions. Accordingly, we affirm the stated rejection over
Simms for substantially the reasons set forth in the Answer and below.
As pointed out by the Examiner, Simms describes a coating
composition including a crosslinker, solvent and the polyester/acrylic grafts
of the pigment dispersion (Answer 5-6; Simms, col. 5, l. 61 – col. 6, l. 10).
We note that Appellants employ open “comprising” language in
representative claim 36. Thus, the claimed composition is open to the
inclusion of the other coating composition ingredients disclosed by Simms.
Moreover, Simms describes the coating composition including the added
pigment dispersion as being capable of forming a film (id.). On this record,
we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation/obvious rejection over Simms.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7, 8, 15, 17, 36, 37, 39,
40, and 42-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kadowaki;
to reject claims 7, 8, 15-22, 36-48, 50, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Taga; and to reject claims 7, 8, 15, 17, 36, 39, 41, and
43-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simms is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013