Appeal 2006-2047
Application 10/257,927
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DE ‘581 in view of Tongyai and Martorano (Answer 4).
Claim 3 stands rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the references
as applied above further in view of Sirkoch (Answer 8). Claims 6-7 stand
rejected under § 103(a) over DE ‘581 in view of Tongyai and Martorano and
Innes (Answer 8).3
Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM all rejections on
appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those
reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that DE ‘581 discloses a coil coating process
where a metal strip is coated on at least one side with a powder slurry
coating material, followed by curing which includes heating to evaporate
water from the coating with subsequent curing by application of thermal
energy (Answer 4). With regard to claim 1 on appeal, the Examiner
recognizes that DE ‘581 fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 as to the
time of curing, the use of roller coating, and the application roll speed as a
percentage of strip speed (Answer 5). Therefore the Examiner applies
Tongyai, finding that this reference discloses a coil coating process where
the metal strip is coated on at least one side with a coating material to
provide an applied coating film (Answer 5). The Examiner further finds that
Tongyai teaches that this film is subsequently heated at 250 ēC to evaporate
the water from the film and then cured with thermal energy for a period of 2
seconds to 3 minutes (Answer 6). The Examiner also applies Martorano for
3 The Examiner has withdrawn all rejections based on DE 199 08 013, i.e., grounds III,
IV, and VI as set forth in the Brief at page 3 (Answer 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007