Appeal No. 2002-2071
Application 09/428,451
The appellants argue that Morishige lacks any teaching to
interrelate Morishige’s corrosion resistant paint with a sealant
in a mechanical attachment (request, page 2). For the reason
given in the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of our decision,
this interrelation would have been fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art by the applied prior art as a whole.
The appellants argue that we used improper hindsight in
characterizing Morishige’s adhesive as an adhesive/sealant
(request, page 2). Support for our characterization of
Morishige’s adhesive as an adhesive/sealant is found at column 3,
lines 34-39 of Morishige, wherein it is disclosed that the
adhesive provides adhesiveness and moisture resistance.
The appellants urge the board to more carefully consider the
disclosure in the appellants’ specification that currently known
methods would thermally destroy or remove corrosion resistant
paint, and that the appellants’ sealant rapidly solidifies and
thereby minimizes attachment duration and avoids adversely
affecting the corrosion resistant property of the paint (request,
page 2). This argument is not well taken because it does not
allege any error in our decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007