Appeal No. 2006-0581
Application 09/997,082
In submitting that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, appellants contend that “[t]he Examiner
points to no teaching in any of the cited references of a process
which includes step C) recited in the claims: electro-phoretically
depositing a highly fluorinated polymer from a dispersion onto a
carbon fiber construction” (page 5 of principal brief, penultimate
paragraph). Appellants’ argument is tantamount to maintaining that
none of the applied references describes the claimed invention
within the meaning of Section 102. However, the examiner’s
rejections are under Section 103 and we are convinced that the
collective teachings of the references would have suggested
modifying the processes of Zuber and Breault by utilizing the
electrophoretic technique of Kosuda. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 202 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1081).
As for claims 12-19 which recite a monolayer coating of
fluorinated polymer particles, we agree with the examiner that the
obvious modification of Zuber and Breault discussed above would have
resulted in a monolayer of polymer particles. Appellants contend
that “the Examiner has made no case adequate to shift the burden of
proof” to appellants to establish that the proposed modification of
Zuber and Breault would inherently result in a monolayer of polymer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007