Appeal No. 1998-2804
Application No. 08/398,881
objects such as automobiles. The examiner contends, answer at page
3, that “[w]ashing and drying are conventional means of cleaning an
automobile. Infrared and air drying are conventional methods of
drying wet articles. To use one or both to dry wet articles would
have been considered obvious....” Regarding claims 17 and 21, the
examiner again notes Swidler’s teachings as before. The examiner
further asserts, answer at page 4, that “[it] is well known to use
masking tape during painting to prevent coatings from being applied
to undesired portions and to coat only the desired portions of an
article. Thus, it would have been considered obvious ... to mask
the portions not to be coated in Swidler.”
Appellants argue, brief at page 17, that “the alleged
conventional ... washing and drying steps are not supported by any
evidence of record and are in fact taught away from by Swidler’s
actual disclosure.” Appellants continue, id., that “[a]lthough
vehicle owners may conventionally wash and dry their own vehicles
via car washes and hand washes, the Swidler’s reference does not
generally pertain to care of individual vehicles by vehicle owners,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007