Appeal No. 2002-0515
Application No. 09/222,092
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. It is not disputed that DeVries uses a
camera to record and detect the emitted fluorescence from the coating. DeVries uses a
detector so that computer logic can be applied to pass or reject the part. (Col. 7, ll. 23 to 33).
Appellants’ argument focuses on the materials to which the binder has been applied. As
stated above, DeVries discloses the apparatus can detect the presences, absences and
thickness of the coated or coextruded layer. (Col. 6, ll. 25-41). Appellants have not
established that the underlying substrate, i.e., particulate material, would affect the detection
of the fluorescence emitted from a separate layer. Appellants have also not established that
the apparatus of DeVries would not have been capable of detecting the fluorescence emitted
from a binder applied to a particulate substrate.
Appellants’ discussion, Brief page 7, of the specific UV light wavelengths disclosed
in DeVries is noted however, the present invention does not exclude the use of specific
wavelengths.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of DeVries and Bolton. (Answer, p. 5-6). We affirm.
Appellants argue that “Bolton et al[.] does not teach or suggest anything with respect
to correlating visible light to binder dosage or distribution. Nor does Bolton et al[.] teach
that the disclosed light assembly would eliminate the need for the benzocyclobutene moiety
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007