Appeal No. 1998-2804
Application No. 08/398,881
Swidler gives an example of drying the paint which is different
from the one claimed, however, Swidler does not proscribe an
artisan from drying the strippable paint by using other means which
are within common knowledge of an artisan and are equivalent to
that disclosed by Swidler.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims
8-13 over Swidler.
Regarding claim 18, the recited limitation of the step of
“washing away contaminations from the surface of said sprayed
coating of said product” is added. Contrary to the appellants’
arguments, we find that an artisan, looking at the disclosure of
Swidler where Swidler teaches that the surfaces are first cleaned
off by washing (column 5, lines 39-47) before the strippable paint
is applied, would have found it obvious to use water or other
equivalent means of cleaning the surface before the strippable
paint is applied. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claims 35-39, the limitation of further having the
“resulting temperatures of the surface of the large-sized product
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007