Ex parte FLORIO et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1998-1616                                                        
          Application No. 08/570,633                                                  

               to remove particles from etched aluminum foil.  At                     
               col. 1, lines 45-60 Altenpohl states:                                  
               “[a]dvantageously one uses rotating rolls of foamed                    
               latex.  Besides rubbing, the foamed latex has also a                   
               sucking effect which contributes to the thorough                       
               removing of the loose particles.”  It would have                       
               been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to                    
               incorporate the Altenpohl rollers into the Minten                      
               process because Minten already has means for                           
               removing particles and liquid from the substrate                       
               surface and Altenpohl says that using the foamed                       
               rollers for sucking up particles is better than                        
               blowing compressed air against a surface to achieve                    
               the same result.  “Removing the loose particles is                     
               also possible by spraying water or blowing a gas                       
               against the surface of the foil with a high                            
               pressure.  But the use of foamed latex wipers is                       
               more efficacious” (col. 1, line[s] 64-67).  The                        
               conceptual and technical simplicity of adding the                      
               rollers, together with the explicit motivation to do                   
               so present in Altenpohl, leads to an inescapable                       
               conclusion of obviousness.  [Answer, page 5.]                          
               Appellants argue, first, that Altenpohl constitutes                    
          nonanalogous art, not being either from appellants’ field of                
          endeavor or pertinent to the problem with which appellants are              
          concerned.  In the view we take of this case, it is                         
          unnecessary to decide this question, and for the sake of                    
          argument, we will assume that Altenpohl is analogous art, and               
          proceed to resolve the question of obviousness based on that                
               Altenpohl provides foamed latex rolls 6, 7 for the                     
          purpose of mechanically removing loose particles broken off                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007