Appeal No. 94-3990
Application No. 08/038,033
many, if not all, paints are toxic, and we are persuaded that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to utilize an applicator known for dispensing one toxic
material for applying another toxic material. As pointed out
by the examiner, appellant bases no argument on objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, nor
does appellant contend that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it unexpected that the applicator of Brockman
would be suitable for dispensing a chromate conversion coating
solution.
Also, the advantage of not wasting the conversion coat
solution described by appellant is also an obvious advantage
realized by the applicator of Brockman.
In conclusion, the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs, are reversed. However,
based on the foregoing and the reasons well-stated by the
examiner, the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained. Accordingly, the
examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007