Appeal No. 94-3599
Application 07/931,737
which involves curing the paint at relatively high temperatures
after application.
Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that Hong is analogous
art, we concur with appellant that Hong provides no teaching or
suggestion that the masking material is either liquid or curable.
The portion of Hong relied upon by the examiner is the discussion
of the prior art at column 1, lines 46-53. Hong discloses that
it was known in the art of sealing the edge of a cathode ray tube
to employ "a manually applied masking tape or a specially formed
repellent coating." (Emphasis added.) According to the
examiner, this disclosure establishes the equivalency of masking
tape and a liquid repellent coating. However, as maintained by
appellant, Hong does not teach that the repellent coating is a
liquid. We do not subscribe to the examiner's reasoning that
"the coating must be a liquid in order to remain adhered to the
sealing edge" 26 of the cathode ray tube, as depicted in
reference Figure 3B. Hong discloses no nexus between the
inventive arrangement of Figure 3B and the discussion of the
prior art at column 1, lines 46 et seq. The prior art technique
referred to by Hong may just as likely apply a powdered coating
to a cathode ray tube that is in an inverted position relative to
the orientation of Figure 3B. It is well settled that a legal
conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007