Appeal No. 2000-1983
Application No. 08/990,038
leading to forming a thin liquid film on a stripping portion of
the main body inner surface.
However, even if we agreed that the examiner has set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness, which we do not, the objective
evidence provided by the declaration of Elric W. Saaski (Paper
No. 14), together with appellants’ arguments regarding the
hydrophobic nature of fiberglass, in our view, rebuts any such
prima facie case.
Grantham discloses that his main body is made of fiberglass.
Declarant explains that fiberglass has hydrophobic (i.e., lacks
affinity for water), rather than hydrophilic (i.e., has a strong
affinity for water), properties. Declarant also points out that
page 9, lines 13-18, of the instant specification indicates that
hydrophilic materials are employed in order “to improve their
wettability and the thinness of the film of stripping liquid they
may carry.” Thus, the thin liquid film property of the instant
claimed invention is dependent on the use of hydrophilic material
for the main body. Since Grantham employs a hydrophobic
material, viz., fiberglass, it would not be compatible with
forming the claimed thin liquid film. Accordingly, even if one
were to take some teaching from Hibshman and combine it with
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007