Ex parte ANDREW R. KNEISEL - Page 4

          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                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007