Appeal No. 96-2170
Application 08/236,570
through 18).
However, from the dissertation provided on pages 4 and 5 of
the Answer, it is the examiner's position that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious from the teachings
of the Japanese reference to modify the device of the admitted
prior art in the following manner:
(1) Apply a low energy surface covering to the land of the
downstream bar, in view of the fact that the Japanese
reference discloses applying the covering to "selected
areas" to prevent undesired buildup of coating material.
(2) Apply a low energy surface coating to the upstream bar
as well, because it would provide greater control of the
coating operation.
(3) Terminate the coating short of the edges of both of the
bars, since the Japanese reference "clearly shows in Figure
2 versus Figure 4 the alternative of not extending the
covering to the tip."
The appellants argue in rebuttal that the references fail to
suggest providing a low surface energy coating on more than one
side of a die lip, that is, on both the upstream and the
downstream bars of the die, or that the coating not extend
completely to the edge of the bars (Brief, pages 5 and 6).
Of course, the test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007