Appeal No. 1997-0488
Application 08/306,584
has a slot surface along said slot meeting a top surface opposite said support forming a front edge tip
and back edge tip respectively, wherein the back edge tip forms an acute-angle tip, and the back edge
tip recedes in a direction opposite to the support from the front edge tip, and wherein a difference
between solubility parameter values at application temperature of said different solvents contained in
said precoat and said coat is less than or equal to 1.5.
The appealed claims as represented by claim 2 are drawn to a method of sequentially forming1
a precoat and at least one coat in a wet condition on a support, which precoat and coat contain
different solvents, with a non-pressurizing head as specified in this claim, wherein the difference
between the solubility parameter values at application temperature of said different solvents in the
respective precoat and coat is less than or equal to 1.5. Appellants provide two different expressions
of the solubility parameter of a solvent at application temperature (specification, pages 8-9). Appellants
disclose that the “solubility parameters are an index indicating solubility of solvents” which , when “close
to each other in value, mutual solubility is raised,” but if different, the lack of affinity may cause the “so-
called ‘runaway phenomenon’” (id., pages 5-6; see also, e.g., pages 10-11).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Shibata et al. (Shibata) 4,907,530 Mar. 13, 1990
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 4,968,528 Nov. 6, 1990
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 2 through 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shibata in view of Tanaka. We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants, we
refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner that the claimed application method encompassed by appealed claim 2
would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Shibata and Tanaka to one of ordinary skill in
this art at the time the claimed invention was made. We agree with the position
advanced by the examiner for essentially the reasons stated in her answer, including her response to
1Appellants state in their brief (page 4) that the appealed claims “stand or fall together.” Thus, we
decide this appeal based on appealed claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007