Appeal 2006-1994
Application 10/253,705
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Sedlmeyr only
heats to cross-link or cure the thermoreactive coating material (Br. 5).
Sedlmeyr discloses that it is known in the coating art to irradiate a coating
and its substrate to vaporize (i.e., dry) the coating material and substrate
(Sedlmeyr, col. 1, line 61 to col. 2, line 16). Sedlmeyr more specifically
discloses that NIR may be used to remove moisture from a substrate (i.e., to
dry the substrate) (Sedlmeyr, col. 4, ll. 39-55). Also, Sedlmeyr teaches that
the vaporization temperature is usually considerably lower than the cross-
linking or curing temperature of thermoreactive powders (Sedlmeyr, col. 2,
ll. 10-13). Thus, any liquid in the coating or substrate will vaporize due to its
lower vaporization temperature prior to cross-linking or curing.
From these disclosures, it is reasonable to find that using NIR to
irradiate a wet or moist thermoreactive coating, applied by using an
“electrically conducting liquid” or moisture to wet the substrate surface prior
to applying the powder, necessarily results in the NIR drying the coating
material prior to cross-linking or curing the material.
We perceive no persuasive merit in Appellants’ apparent position that
Sedlmeyr does not specify that lamps are produced using his method. The
argued claims on appeal also do not specify that lamps are produced by the
claimed method. Appellants’ claim 1 recitation that their method is used
“for drying wet or moist coating on substrates for lamps” is merely a
statement that the product of the claimed process (i.e., a dried coating on a
substrate) is intended to be used in a lamp environment. Such recitation does
not result in a manipulative difference between the claimed method and the
prior art. See, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007