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
assumption.
Altenpohl provides foamed latex rolls 6, 7 for the
purpose of mechanically removing loose particles broken off
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007