Appeal No. 1997-0488
Application 08/306,584
appellants’ arguments, adding the following only for emphasis.
As discussed by the examiner, the dispositive issue in this appeal is whether one of ordinary
skill in this art would have found a reasonable suggestion in the combined teachings of Shibata and
Tanaka to modify the application method of Shibata by using different solvents in the precoat and the
magnetic recording coat solutions applied by a non-pressurizing coating head, as exemplified in this
reference, in view of the teachings that the same or different solvents can be used in such precoat and
magnetic recording coat solutions applied by a pressurizing coating head in the application method of
Tanaka, with the reasonable expectation of wet coating the magnetic recording coat solution over the
precoat on a support (answer, pages 4-5 and 7-9). Appellants submit that one of ordinary skill in this
art would not have combined the teachings of Shibata and Tanaka in view of the difference in the type
of coating head used in the application methods disclosed therein because of the “degree of occurrence
of the runaway phenomenon” (brief, pages 5-6). In support of their position, appellants allege that this
phenomenon “is not likely to occur” with a pressurizing coating head “because the coat layer is strongly
pushed against the precoat layer” and “more readily occurs” with a non-pressurizing coating head “since
the coating fluid has little pressure when applied” (id., page 6). Thus, appellants contend that because
the phenomenon is “unique . . . only . . . [where] a non-pressure type coating head is used” and not
mentioned in Tanaka, one of ordinary skill in this art “would never recognize that the runaway
phenomenon could be eliminated by following the teachings of [Tanaka]” (id., pages 6-7). The
examiner, noting the similarities in the application methods of Shibata and Tanaka, including the precoat
and magnetic recording coat solutions used therein, submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to use the conventional coating materials of Tanaka in the method of Shibata with
the expectation of “similar coating results” even if this person did not recognize the problem of the
“runaway phenomenon” (answer, pages 7-9).
We must agree with the examiner that the coating materials taught in Shibata and Tanaka are
conventional and we find from reviewing these references that there is little, if any, difference in such
materials and that pressure is used to apply these materials regardless of the type of coating head
employed. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably expected that the coat
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007