Appeal No. 2006-0559 6
Application No. 10/085,527
Since the appellant has not specifically refuted any of the examiner’ findings noted
above, we hold that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in
view of Taylor alone.
In the alternative, the examiner has rejected all of the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 in view of Taylor combined with McComas and Kaiba. McComas apparently
is cited as further evidence of the need to control certain spray parameters when removing
material from a surface with a spray jet. Kaiba apparently is cited for its teaching of the
use of an automatic control system in applying a spray jet to a curved surface.
Although McComas relates to the removal of a coating from a surface rather than
roughening an uncoated surface, and Kaiba relates to a painting process instead of an
abrasive grit blasting process, as secondary references, we agree with the examiner that
they may be properly relied upon as further evidence of basic principles and techniques
applied when directing a spray jet at a curved surface. Accordingly, we find that the
combination of references relied upon by the examiner reinforces, and provides further
evidence to support, a prima facie case of obviousness based upon Taylor alone.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007