Appeal No. 2003-1983
Application No. 09/704,077
The irregularities create a difference in the light reflectance
exhibited by the surface of the paint layer and thereby appear
black in color. Id. at lines 8-11. There is absolutely no
indication in Yokoyama that the laser produces markings that are
easy to smudge and, therefore, fragile as required by the claims.
We also find the examiner’s determination of obviousness
deficient in that the examiner fails to identify proper support
for his conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to deposit a second coating on
Yokoyama’s identifying indicia. See Examiner’s Answer, page 6.
In support of his position, the examiner points to columns 1 and
2 of Yokoyama as indicating that reliability and quality are
important to his invention. The examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to have modified Yokoyama’s method to include
application of a topcoat in order to achieve these desired
properties. Id. However, the examiner fails to identify any
teaching in the prior art that a topcoat would be effective in
providing reliability and quality to Yokoyama’s cathode ray
tubes. See W. L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with
knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007