Appeal No. 96-0044
Application 08/014,136
Even if we were to assume for purposes of argument that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to add the known lubricants of the secondary references to
the coating composition of Kampf, contrary to the examiner’s allegation,
Kampf fails to disclose the amount of lubricant used. Kampf also does not explain the
purpose for the lubricant. In general, the concentration and choice of lubricants are
viewed as important because excessive lubricant can nullify the intended effects or
properties. Here, Kampf indicates that an object of his invention is to produce
electroconductive coatings which do not have certain known disadvantages, one
disadvantage being that metal coatings vapor deposited on plastic films often exhibit poor
coating adhesion. Hence on this record, since Kampf’s coating composition aids in the
adhesion of the metal layer to the plastic film base, we must presume that the amount used
is different from the amount used by appellants to “allow release of the metal layer from the
plastic film”. Moreover, on this record, the examiner has not presented any evidence to
establish that the amount of lubricant is a result effective
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007