Appeal No. 1997-0432
Application No. 08/200,951
has the advantage of providing improved resistance to
corrosion and damage caused by impact or abrasion" (page 2 of
Brief).
Appellants submit at page 4 of the Brief that claims 1-3,
5, 6 and 9 stand or fall together, as do claims 4, 5 and 6.
Appealed claims 1-6 and 9-11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior
art in view of Camelon and Silman.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
As indicated by the Jepson format of appealed claim 1,
appellants acknowledge that it was known in the art to coat
metallic structures consisting of assembled wires with an
external coating that is applied by the electrostatic spraying
of a thermosetting powder of a polyester resin, an epoxy resin
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007