Appeal No. 1998-2642
Application No. 08/697,339
specifically requires “spraying a layer of liquid coating
solution onto the material without electrostatic bonding”
(emphasis added). Furthermore, the examiner has not shown or
alleged that the “liquid” coating disclosed as “Background” in
Staniforth is identical to or suggests the “spraying” of
liquid coating solution as required by the process of claim 12
on appeal.
The examiner states that the elimination of the
electrostatic means and its corresponding function would have
been obvious (Answer, page 4). However, the examiner has not
recognized that the “Background” of Staniforth is directed to
electrostatic liquid and dry powder coating applications.
Thus
one of ordinary skill in the art, if selecting the liquid
coating
application taught as known by Staniforth, would have had no
reason to omit the electrostatic means.
As discussed above, Burgess was applied by the examiner
to show a conveyor with treads and risers in the coating art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007