Appeal No. 1997-0091 Page 6
Application No. 08/115,530
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-6) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. We
agree.
All the claims under appeal recite an apparatus for
coating printed circuit boards comprising, inter alia, a
coating station having coating means including a pouring
table, a vapor-removal and air drying station having a vapor-
removal drier, and an air processing module which is arranged
in a housing which adjoins an entrance side of the housing of
the vapor-removal drier and extends over and above the pouring
3(...continued)
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Sichert,
566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977). See also
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007