Appeal 2006-1994
Application 10/253,705
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to a method of drying wet or moist coatings
on substrates for lamps in which the energy required to dry the coatings is
supplied from a thermal radiator (Specification 1, ll. 5-10). Claims 1 and 2
are illustrative:
1. A method for drying wet or moist coatings on substrates for lamps,
in which the energy required to dry the coatings is supplied in the form of
electromagnetic radiation from a thermal radiator, and at least 25% of the
electromagnetic radiation supplied by the thermal radiator lies in the
wavelength range between 0.7 and 1.5µm.
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, in that more than 50% of the
electromagnetic radiation supplied lies in the wavelength range between 0.7
and 1.5µm.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Tate US 5,319,861 Jun. 14, 1994
Kruwinus US 6,016,612 Jan. 25, 2000
Sedlmeyr US 6,436,485 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sedlmeyr.
2. Claims 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sedlmeyr in view of Tate.
3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Sedlmeyr in view of Kruwinus
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007