Appeal No. 2006-0440
Application No. 10/291,933
uniform distribution of the coating, thus arriving at a method
encompassed by appealed claim 1. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,
493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(citing In re Dow
Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1988)).
The appellants argue that “[n]othing in Zimmer et al.
discloses or suggests the coating of a substrate with a reactive
polymeric reaction mixture” and that “[n]othing in Grimm et al.
discloses or suggests the use of a multichannel applicator for
applying a polymeric reaction mixture in the method described
therein.” (Substitute appeal brief at 3-4.) The examiner
correctly found these arguments unpersuasive. While Zimmer does
not expressly disclose the use of the disclosed multichannel
applicator for applying a polymeric reaction mixture on a
substrate, the reference suggests the suitability of the
applicator for applying any flowable material (which would be
inclusive of Grimm’s polyurethane reaction mixture) onto a
substrate. Also, while Grimm does not disclose a multichannel
applicator, the teachings of Zimmer provide the requisite
motivation, suggestion, or teaching for one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Grimm’s method. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981)(“[O]ne cannot show non-
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007