Appeal No. 1997-4279
Application No. 08/486,702
timing is not consequential to the issue before us since the
claims on appeal do not address separation or separation
timing.
It is apparent to us that appellant has ignored the
teaching of Klebanow (column 3, lines 49 through 57) relied
upon by the examiner (answer, page 5) as the basis for the
motivation for the modification of the German reference.
Viewed as a whole, the Klebanow document explicitly reveals
the known feature in the coating art of overlapping sheets to
protect an underlying conveyor from being coated or covered
with coating material. As we see it, this feature would have
been recognized as beneficial for partially dried, dried, or
wet coating materials. Thus, it cannot fairly be said to be a
reference that "teaches away," as argued (brief, page 5). As
explained above, and clearly contrary to the viewpoint of
appellant (brief, page 6), the examiner's rejection is
assessed as soundly based upon prior art teachings themselves
which provide motivation for the proposed modification,
clearly without reliance upon improper hindsight and an
inappropriate use of appellant's own disclosure.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007