Appeal 2006-2047
Application 10/257,927
First, we determine that the field of endeavor is coil coating, which, as
defined by Appellants, is the term used for roller coating, spray or flow
coating of metal strips with liquid coating materials (Specification 1:8-13).
We determine that Tongyai is also directed to immersion, layering, or spray
coating metal strips, i.e., coil coating (Tongyai 1: 61-66; 2:59-61). Second,
we note that it was well known in the art that the teachings from liquid
coating technology were applicable to powder slurry coating (see DE ‘581,
6-7 and 33:12-15). Third, we also determine that Tongyai was reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem faced by Appellants, namely the
formation of “pinholes” or pores in the coating resulting from water removal
in thin films (Tongyai 1:67-2:4; Specification 2:11-16 and 3:12-4:15).
Although Appellants argue that “[p]inholing from water evaporation was
never Applicants’ problem” (Reply Br. 2), the Specification as cited above
discloses the problem of “pore” formation in thin coatings where the “water
present therein evaporates” (Specification 4:5). Accordingly, on this record,
we determine that Tongyai is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
faced by Appellants.
Additionally, we note that neither Tongyai nor Martorano is necessary
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We determine that DE ‘581
alone discloses or suggests all the limitations of claim 1 on appeal with the
exception of the application roll speed and strip speed. See the findings
from DE ‘581 as discussed above, with further findings that this reference
teaches the use of powder slurry materials for the same reason as Appellants
(DE ‘581 6-7), with application of the powder slurry by “spraying, rolling,
or dipping” (DE ‘581 33), and curing times which “can vary considerably”
but can be “adapted” to the coating structure in question (DE ‘581 43).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007