Appeal 2006-1994
Application 10/253,705
with isopropyl alcohol, the isopropyl alcohol coating is “earthed” (i.e.,
electrically grounded), and then the thermoreactive coating is applied
(Sedlmeyr, col. 5, ll. 56-60). Moreover, another pre-treatment method for a
moisture absorbing substrate may involve moistening the substrate before
the base layer of coating is applied (Sedlmeyr, col. 4, ll. 32-35).
Based on the aforenoted disclosures, we find Sedlmeyr to indicate a
preference for 100% of the radiation used to heat the substrate to be within
the NIR wavelength range of 0.7 to 1.2 µm. Therefore, Appellants’ claimed
features of “at least 25%” (i.e., claim 1) and “more than 50%” (i.e., claim 2)
of the electromagnetic radiation being in the wavelength range of 0.7 to 1.5
µm are disclosed by Sedlmeyr.
In addition, Sedlmeyr’s pre-treatment of the substrate with “an
electrically conductive liquid” or moisture necessarily forms a “wet or moist
coating” as claimed and disclosed by Appellants. In Sedlmeyr’s example,
isopropyl alcohol is sprayed on the substrate and the thermoreactive powder
is applied thereto (Sedlmeyr, col. 5, ll. 56-60). Applying powder to wetted
surfaces necessarily produces “moist coatings” as claimed.
In this latter regard, we note that Appellants have not defined in their
Specification what degree of moisture is required to render their coatings
“moist” within the meaning of the claims. Moreover, the Appellants in their
Brief have not proffered an interpretation of the claim phrase “moist
coatings.” Under these circumstances, it is our determination that the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ Specification
of “moist coatings” as claimed would include coatings that contain the
presence of any amount of moisture for any period of time. Phillips vs.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007