Appeal No. 94-3990
Application No. 08/038,033
associated with handling a solution of chromic acid and
cyanide.
We now turn to the rejection of all the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Brockman in view of the admitted
state of the prior art. We will sustain this rejection for
essentially those reasons expressed by the examiner in the
Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant's specification acknowledges, at page 1, that
"[t]he conventional method of repairing the scratched aluminum
surfaces is to obtain a bottle of certified conversion coat
solution, and then using cotton balls, Q-tips, rags, or
sponges, and the like, rub, or otherwise apply, the conversion
coat solution over the scratched areas until the scratch was
fully coated with conversion coat solution." While appellant
acknowledges that many conventional application techniques
have been used to apply a conversion coat solution, the use of
"a well-known conventional 'felt tip' type marking pen or
similar structure" (page 2 of specification) for such a
purpose is not within the admitted prior art. However, there
is no dispute that Brockman discloses an applicator of the
type claimed to dispense paint, enamel or other coating
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007