Appeal No. 1998-2800 Page 8
Application No. 08/572,505
reverse on this basis, we need not reach the issue of the
sufficiency of the asserted showing of unexpected results
(brief, pages 20-24 and reply brief, pages 6 and 7). See In
re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
REMAND
As evident by the above discussion of the admitted prior
art set forth in appellants' specification, it is apparent
that the herein claimed process primarily differs from that
which is expressly admitted to be old by providing that the
degrease and acid cleaning steps of the process are carried
out in a continuous manner rather than by a batch process.
However, it is generally considered to be an obvious option
for an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify a process for
continuous as opposed to batch operation to obtain the
expected advantages of such a change. See In re Korpi, 160
F.2d 564, 566, 73 USPQ 229, 230 (CCPA 1947).
While the herein claimed process also calls for forming a
matting layer, we observe that the formation of such a layer
is acknowledged by appellants as being described in what
appear to be prior Japanese patent publications as set forth
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007