Appeal No. 2005-0638
Application No. 10/087,301
C. The Rejections under § 102(b)/§ 103(a)
The examiner rejects claim 31 under sections 102(b)/103(a)
over either Von Kohorn (Answer, page 6) or Guertin (Answer, page
7). The examiner finds that the spray nozzles of Von Kohorn or
Guertin are “considered capable” of dripping an uneven coating
(Answer, pages 6-7). In any event, the examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious in either Von Kohorn or Guertin “to
use dripping means to conserve coating material and prevent
excess coating material from being wasted in the coating area by
spraying” (id.).
A deficiency in the examiner’s rejections is that the
examiner has not established, on this record, that the spray
nozzles of Von Kohorn or Guertin are capable of initially
applying a “substantially uneven” coating to a filamentous
article as claimed (with “substantially uneven” defined as in the
specification, page 4, ¶[0023]). With regard to the examiner’s
obviousness conclusion, again we must note that there is no
evidence of record supporting the examiner’s reasoning to use
dripping means (to conserve coating material and prevent excess
coating material from being wasted). Contrary to the examiner’s
position, Von Kohorn teaches the use of a trough 23 to catch
spent treating liquids, where these liquids may be discarded or
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007