Appeal No. 2005-0381 Page 16
Application No. 09/841,380
explained above, it is reasonable to conclude that Hess is capable of producing a line of charged
droplets. No discussion of Neidich is required here.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of claims 38-41 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellants.
Obviousness of Claims 44-50
Claims 44-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hess
and Nakajima and further in view of Hall. Claims 44-50 stand or fall together (Brief, p. 11). We
select claim 44 to resolve the issues on appeal. Claim 44 is dependent on claim 33 and further
requires “two or more pick and place devices that can periodically contact and re-contact the wet
coating at different positions on the substrate, wherein the devices have periods that improve the
uniformity of a coating on the substrate compared to a coating made without such devices.”
Appellants argue various limitations not present in claim 44 (Brief, pp. 33-35). We will
only address the argument that is relevant to the limitations of claim 44 as claim 44 is the claim
that represents the issues on appeal. The relevant argument is the one in which Appellants argue
that the Examiner has not given a proper basis for selecting Hall from among the thousands of
other references that generally involve coating and combining it with Hess and Nakajima (Brief,
pp. 35-36).
That there is a proper basis for incorporating the smoothing rollers of Hall into the
apparatus of Hess is evident from the references themselves. Hess is interested in applying a
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007