Appeal No. 2006-1062
Application No. 10/246,994
of ordinary skill in the art i.e., using a plurality of covers of
the type disclosed by Holt. See In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 244,
147 USPQ 420, 421. (CCPA 1965).
We do not subscribe to appellant’s position that Thompson
teaches away from using the covers of Holt by stating that
conventional taping and laying of sheets of paper to mask
surfaces are time consuming and not cost effective. The teaching
of Thompson is that the inventive paint shield is preferable to
the conventional methods of masking a surface and would not teach
against covering the shield itself to prevent the undesirable
accumulation of paint.
Appellant also maintains that “Holt is not directed to
separating a surface not being painted from a surface being
painted” (page 7 of brief, third paragraph). According to
appellant, “[t]here is no shielding or protection of a surface to
be left unpainted in the Holt patent” (id.). This argument is
without merit, however, inasmuch as Holt indeed provides
separation between the wall not to be painted and the car that
receives the paint.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007