Appeal No. 1998-0870
Application No. 08/325,015
In appellants’ specification, the antistatic, light-absorbing
coating is dried following spin coating (page 7, lines 28-32).
As in appellants’ specification, Kinoshita also dries the
antistatic coating (see, e.g., Preferred Embodiment 1).
Accordingly, we do not consider any of the alleged
“advantages” to be persuasive, because there is no evidence
(e.g., comparative experiments) on this record to show any
nonobvious difference between the subject matter of claim 1 on
appeal and the closest prior art, which is Kinoshita.
Appellants contend that De Boer teaches the use of only a
single electroconductive species and would therefore lead a
person of ordinary skill in the art away from the claimed
combination of electroconductive particles (i.e., the
combination of the antimony doped tin oxide and the
polypyrrole). Further, appellants urge that De Boer’s coating
requires a silicon dioxide matrix, which would lead one of
ordinary skill in the art from the use of any discrete
particles in addition to the latex particles of polypyrrole.
We, like the examiner, reject these arguments, because they
ignore the collective teachings of all the references
including Kinoshita. The question is what the combined
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007