Appeal No. 1999-2242
Application No. 08/137,056
the inside surface of the windshield wiper mold and Yasukawa
coats the
starting material (corresponding to the “heat curable rubber
mix” of claim 12) with the PTFE “overcoat,” rather than the
inner surface of the mold.
With regard to these differences, the examiner determined
(answer, pp. 5 and 6) that
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to provide the
mold of Yasukawa with a permanent coating of TEFLON
therein, as clearly suggested by Church, to provide
permanent non-stick properties to the mold and thus
eliminate possible sticking to the mold as well as
eliminate the need for a spray release
and
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to spray coat the
modified mold of Yasukawa instead of dipping the
body to be molded, as clearly suggested by
Mohiuddin, to provide for a more uniform coating of
the wiper blade.
The appellant argues (main brief, pages 7 and 8) that
neither Church nor Mohiuddin would have suggested to the
artisan the treatment of a permanent release coating (the
claimed permanent PTFE coating) with an additional “transient
release agent” (the claimed transferable overcoat of PTFE)
prior to the introduction of the curable mixture into the
mold.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007