Appeal No. 1999-2755
Application No. 08/599,105
the need to remove coating particles from the surface after
the coating process is completed.
The arguments advanced in the brief relative to the
obviousness rejection (pp. 4 through 6) do not convince us
that the examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Contrary to the view of the appellant (brief, pp. 4 and
5), we consider the Takahashi document to be appropriate
analogous prior art. Simply stated, it is our viewpoint that
the appellant has an overly restrictive view of the teachings
of the reference, focusing upon the particular item, i.e., the
nut and panel assembly, in Takahashi undergoing
electrodeposition. On the other hand, viewing the Takahashi
document as a whole, and, of course, from the perspective of
one having ordinary skill in the art, it is quite apparent to
us that the disclosure of Takahashi is clearly reasonably
pertinent to the problem addressed by the appellant, i.e.,
unwanted deposit of coating material on surface areas during
an electrodeposition process. Hence, it is fairly viewed as
analogous prior art. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23
USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and In re Wood, 599 F.2d
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007