Appeal 2006-2047
Application 10/257,927
the teaching that it is known in the coil coating art to apply multiple layers of
curable material, desirably by roller coating, including either direct roll
coating or reverse roll coating (id.). From these findings, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to employ the high temperatures and short curing
times suggested by Tongyai, and the desirable roll coating used by
Martorano, in the coil coating process of DE ‘581 (Answer 6-7). The
Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to optimize the
speed of the application roll when applying the coating material since only
routine experimentation would have been necessary to determine the speed,
roll size, and application rate depending on the desired thickness of the
coating film (Answer 7).
Appellants argue that Tongyai is non-analogous art, concerned with
dip coating, not roller coating with a powder slurry (Br. 4). Appellants
further argue that Tongyai is not reasonably pertinent to the problem
Appellants faced, namely the problem of high coating thicknesses or pores
resulting from attempts of using thin coating thicknesses (Br. 5; Reply Br.
1-2).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Determination that the
reference is from non-analogous art is two-fold; first we must decide if the
reference is within the field of the inventors’ endeavor; if it is not, we must
proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventors were involved. See In re GPAC
Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). On the
facts of this record, we determine that Tongyai is analogous art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007