Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
energy of the film material and enables or enhances further
processing, such as printing or bonding (col. 2, lines 3-11).
Based on this teaching and the teachings in Copley and Bradshaw,
the examiner has concluded that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time appellants’ invention
was made to provide a preheating step for the disk/picture in the
method of formation of the medallion in Copley as modified by
Bradshaw so as to alter the surface energy of the disk/picture
material and thus enable or enhance further processing, such as
bonding of the protective coating of Bradshaw to the
disk/picture. We agree with the examiner.
In response to appellants’ argument (brief, page 11) that
Prinz is non-analogous art, while we would agree with appellants
that Prinz is not within their field of endeavor in the metal
token minting art, we nonetheless consider that Prinz is
reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by appellants
(specification, page 15) regarding a corona discharge treatment
of the imprinted disks (30) therein which alters the surface
energy of the imprinted disks so that the protective coating (40)
will adhere more securely thereto. Thus, we conclude that Prinz
is analogous prior art and was properly considered by the
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007