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 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007