Appeal No. 1996-1896
Application No. 08/206,973
properties upon said surfaces of said substrate during a
coating run lasting for a definite period of time.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Lester et al. (Lester) 4,329,260 May 11, 1982
Accuntius et al. (Accuntius) 5,284,676 Feb. 8, 1994
(Filed Nov. 18,
1991)
Emken et al. (Emken) 5,328,713 July 12, 1994
(Filed Mar. 16, 1993)
Claims 1 through 7 and 10 through 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Emken alone or in view of
Lester. Claims 1 through 16 and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Accuntius alone or in
view of Lester.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments and
evidence presented on appeal, we concur with appellant that
the applied prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we will not sustain any of the examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejections for essentially those reasons set
forth in the Brief. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007