Appeal No. 1998-2804
Application No. 08/398,881
Appellants also argue, brief at page 18, that “Swidler does
not disclose or in any [way] suggest a method in which a strippable
paint as sprayed onto the surface of a large-sized object is
preliminarily dried and then non-preliminarily dried as set forth
in independent claims 8 and 18 and dependent claim 32 (sic, 35)...,
but again Swidler teaches away from the claimed method involving
preliminary and non-preliminary (partial and final) drying steps
because Swidler simply permits the applied coating compositions to
air dry in a single, continuous step as discussed above.”
We do not agree with the appellants’ position. In their
analysis and arguments, appellants have ignored the knowledge of an
artisan relating to the art of applying a strippable paint, or
other type of paint, onto a surface. Instead, appellants have
argued against Swidler as a single reference by itself. We point
here that it has been well established that an artisan must be
presumed to know something about the art apart from what the
references disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ
317, 319 (CCPA 1962)) and the conclusion of obviousness may be made
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007