Appeal No. 96-2170
Application 08/236,570
upstream bar in all of the embodiments. However, important to
our conclusion, no such covering is shown also on the downstream
bar of the Figure 5 embodiment, which is the only one that has
both bars. Nor is the use of this covering on the downstream bar
set forth in the text. From our perspective, therefore, it would
appear that the only suggestion to provide a low surface energy
covering on the downstream bar as well as the upstream bar is
found via the hindsight accorded one who first viewed the
appellants' disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992). We are not persuaded otherwise by the examiner's
assertion that this reference discloses applying the covering to
"selected areas" (Answer, page 4, line 22), and that this would
have suggested both the downstream bar and the upstream bar, for
we find no support for such in the document.
It is our further opinion that even assuming, arguendo, that
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested the
use of the covering on both bars, they fail to teach that the low
energy surface covering not extend completely to the edges of the
bars. The examiner's position is that this is shown in Figure 2
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007