Appeal 2006-1994
Application 10/253,705
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellants
and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief and to
the Answer respectively for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
Appellants separately argue only claims 1 and 2. The § 103(a)
rejections of claims 13, 15, 16 and 17 (which depend from claim 1) stand or
fall with the patentability determination of claim 1 as indicated on pages 6-7
of the Brief. Accordingly, we choose claims 1 and 2 as representative
claims on which to render our decision.
§ 103(a) REJECTION OVER SEDLMEYR
Claim 1 requires a method for drying wet or moist coatings having
electromagnetic radiation supplied from a thermal radiator wherein “at least
25% of the electromagnetic radiation supplied by the thermal radiator lies in
the wavelength range between 0.7 to 1.5 µm.”
Claim 2 depends upon claim 1 and further states that “more than 50%
of the electromagnetic radiation supplied lies in the wavelength range
between 0.7 to 1.5 µm.”
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 2 under § 103(a) over Sedlmeyr.1
In the rejection, the Examiner stated that Sedlmeyr discloses a method of
drying wet or moist coatings on substrates that includes supplying
1 The Examiner refers to the Kruwinus patent in his explanation of this
rejection, but does not include the Kruwinus patent in the statement of the
rejection. Accordingly, we will not consider Kruwinus in our assessment of
the § 103(a) rejection over Sedlmeyr. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3,
166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007