Ex parte RITTER - Page 8

          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                    

               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.                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007