Appeal 2006-3011
Application 10/123,110
transparent and colorless paint. The golf club head of the admitted prior art
does not include the claimed iridescent coat of an iridescent paint. However,
we agree with the Examiner that Bradstreet and Molitor evidence the
obviousness of adding a coating of iridescent paint to the golf club head of
the admitted prior art for the known benefit of enhancing the aesthetic
appearance of the club head (see Molitor at col. 5, ll. 33-35). It was
certainly well known in the art to use coatings of iridescent material on a
large variety of articles for aesthetic purposes, and Bradstreet and Molitor
provide evidence that one such known article was a golf club head.
We do not understand Appellant's argument that "[a]s acknowledged
by the Examiner, the described Conventional Art does not include … (1) a
color coat of a coloring paint which includes a pigment" (page 6 of principal
Br., penultimate paragraph). The Examiner acknowledges no such thing but,
rather, submits that the admitted prior art "discloses a conventional pearl
painting for a golf club with a triple-layer coating comprising: a colorless
priming paint (b); colorant paint coating (c); and a clear coat (d)" (page 3 of
Answer, last paragraph). Manifestly, in the Conventional Art of Appellant's
Figure 3, layer (c) is a color coat of a coloring paint including a pigment.
Appellant also contends that there is no basis in fact for the
Examiner's finding that a coating of Bradstreet has properties of iridescent
material. However, the factual basis resides in Bradstreet's disclosure of a
coating containing crypto crystalline titanium oxide (col. 2, ll. 9 et seq.),
which corresponds to the titanium oxide-coated mica flakes of the claimed
invention. Appellant maintains that the crypto crystalline titanium oxide
coating of Bradstreet produces a dark coating that is applied by flame-spray.
However, flame-spraying that produces a black coating is only one method
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007