Appeal No. 2005-0381 Page 13
Application No. 09/841,380
limitations are met. Ludtke, 441 F.2d at 663-64, 169 USPQ at 566-67. Appellants have not
convinced us that the spray head and roll structure of Hess is not capable of coating a substrate
as claimed. It would appear that parameters other than the arrangement of the spray head and
transfer surface control the coating penetration. In fact, the Examiner could have based the
rejection on anticipation rather than obviousness. Anticipation being the epitome or ultimate of
obviousness, Fracalossi, 681 F.2d at 794, 215 USPQ at 571, we cannot say that the Examiner
failed to establish unpatentability.
Group VIII, Claim 59
Claim 59 is directed to “[a]n apparatus according to claim 33 wherein the spray head
produces drops having an average drop diameter, the transfer surface transfers a coating having
an average caliper to the substrate, the average caliper is less than the average drop diameter, and
the transferred coating is substantially void-free.” Basically, the claim is directed to the “thin
film process” wherein the droplets are deposited apart from each other and are allowed to spread
to form a continuous thin film coating (specification, p. 2, ll. 2-7).
The limitations of claim 59, like those of claim 55, are functional in nature. The
discussion with respect to claim 55 applies here as well. The Examiner has found that the spray
head and transfer surface arrangement of Hess is capable of functioning as claimed (Answer,
p. 5) and we find that finding reasonable in light of the disclosure of Hess. Particularly, the
moisturized atmosphere of Hess maintains the liquidity of the droplets and thus the droplets are
able to flow upon deposit (Hess, col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 8). Again, contrary to the arguments of
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007