Ex Parte Varner - Page 2

               Appeal  2006-2709                                                                           
               Application 10/254,295                                                                      
               Appellant's application is directed to an invention involving a method of                   
               treating a surface with a wax material.  Wax with a carrier or solvent is spray             
               applied to a surface that has some crevices or pores; that is, the surface is               
               textured or patterned, such as a painted vehicle surface.  Then, a wiper blade              
               is contacted with the surface and drawn across it in a wiping action resulting              
               in partial separation of carrier liquid from the particles of wax while forcing             
               wax particles into surface pores and/or crevices.  Claim 1 is illustrative and              
               reproduced below:                                                                           
                      1.  A method for improving the specularity of a surface, comprising                  
               the steps of:                                                                               
                            (a)  applying a wax material suspended in a carrier or solvent by              
               spraying onto the surface, wherein the surface includes at least textures or                
               patterns;                                                                                   
                            (b)  providing a wiper blade having a flexible panel including a               
               lip formed along the lower edge; and                                                        
                            (c)  drawing the lip of the wiper blade across the surface,                    
               wiping away the carrier or solvent and leaving the wax material in pores and                
               crevices of the textured or patterned surface.                                              

                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence                
               in rejecting the appealed claims:                                                           
               Tomingas    US 3,649,987  Mar. 21, 1972                                                     
               Yeiser    US 6,159,551  Dec. 12, 2000                                                       
                      Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                         
               unpatentable over Yeiser in view of Tomingas.                                               
                      Appellant does not separately argue the rejected claims in the Brief.                
               Thus, we select claim 1, as the representative claim on which we decide this                
               appeal.                                                                                     

                                                    2                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013