motivation raised on appeal" (page 5 of Request, last paragraph).
The requisite motivation arises from, as discussed in our
opinion, the recognition by one of ordinary skill in the art that
conventional applicators of the type claimed are known to avoid
waste of the material being applied, as well as to allow for a
precise application of the material.
As for appellant pointing out that "a materials and process
engineer describes appellant's applicator as 'revolutionary' when
referring to advantages of using the applicator" (page 6 of
Request, last paragraph), we note that the characterization as
"revolutionary" speaks more to the novelty of the claimed
invention rather than its obviousness under § 103. We remain of
the opinion that appellant has not established that the
advantages of using the claimed applicator, namely, less waste
and danger to the worker compared to using sponges and rags,
would have been unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Consequently, based on the foregoing, appellant's request is
denied with respect to making any change in our decision.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007