Appeal 2006-1994
Application 10/253,705
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s application of the prior
art to the claims is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction (Br. 6).
The Examiner responds that “100% of the primary reference[’s] [i.e.,
Sedlmeyr’s] electromagnetic radiation” falls within the claimed wavelength
range, such that the claimed limitations of “at least 25%” and “more than
50%” are disclosed by Sedlmeyr (Answer 5-6). The Examiner asserts that
Appellants do not discuss the allegedly significant differences between the
claimed “wet or moist coatings” and Sedlmeyr’s coatings (Answer 6).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Sedlmeyr’s coatings are “synonymous
with the argued wet or moist coatings used on lamp substrates” (Answer 6).
The Examiner further indicates that the “intended use” recited in the claimed
method is fully suggested by Sedlmeyr (Answer 6). Regarding Appellants’
allegation of hindsight, the Examiner states that the rejections are fully
discussed such that no impermissible hindsight was used in his analysis
(Answer 6-7).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that the claims are
unpatentable over Sedlmeyr.
Sedlmeyr discloses applying a thermoreactive powder to a substrate
and irradiating the powder with near-infrared (NIR) radiation (Sedlmeyr,
col. 2, ll. 22-55). Sedlmeyr further discloses that “preferably” NIR is used to
irradiate the coated substrate and that the wavelength range for NIR is
between the visible spectrum (0.7 µm at the high end of the visible
spectrum) and 1.2 µm (Sedlmeyr, col. 2, ll. 40-47).
Moreover, Sedlmeyr discloses that an electrically conductive liquid is
used to pre-treat a substrate prior to applying the coating material (Sedlmeyr,
col. 4, ll. 26-31). For example, Sedlmeyr discloses spraying a substrate
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007