Appeal No. 2006-0340
Application No. 10/089,315
Goldheim discloses a method of flame spraying a zinc coating on a
submerged marine surface, such as a boat hull, to protect the
submerged surface from bio-fouling. While Goldheim does not
expressly disclose the use of the presently claimed twin wire arc
spraying method, Hatfield teaches that it was known in the art to
employ twin wire electric arc spraying for applying a coating of
zinc. Consequently, we find no error in the examiner's legal
conclusion that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
(1) modify Goldheim to use electric arc twin wire
spraying, with both wires of zinc as suggested by
Hatfield with an expectation of producing a desirable
protected coated article, because Goldheim teaches
flame spraying a zinc coating, and Hatfield teaches
that when applying zinc coatings, either flame spraying
or twin wire arc spraying with both wires of zinc are
desirable application methods.
(Page 13 of Answer, second paragraph, first sentence). See also
the second and third reasons given by the examiner at page 13 of
the Answer. We are not persuaded by appellant's argument that
"[t]he purpose of this technology [of Hatfield] is to provide
radio frequency shielding of electromagnetic interference" (page
13 of principal brief, third paragraph). We concur with the
examiner that Hatfield is analogous art and, therefore,
combinable with Goldheim, because Hatfield "is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which applicant was
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007