Appeal 2006-2047
Application 10/257,927
Accordingly, we determine that the optimization of curing times would have
been well within the ordinary skill in this art. Similarly, we agree with the
Examiner that the optimization of the application roll speed to the strip
speed would have been well within the ordinary skill in this art, since one of
ordinary skill in this art would have recognized the size of the roll, the speed
of each roll, and the strip speed would be interrelated depending on the
desired thickness of the metal coating (Answer 7 and 13-14). Appellants
admit that it was known in the art that the metal strip passes through a coil
coating line “at a speed adapted to the application and curing properties of
the coating materials” (Specification 5:15-22). See In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,
620, 195 USPQ 6, 8-9 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205
USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
Appellants argue that the rejection provides no legal basis for finding
that the limitation regarding the application roll speed and strip speed is
obvious from the combined references (Br. 6). Appellants argue that the
references provide no guidance or direction regarding optimization (Reply
Br. 3).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, the
Examiner has provided technical reasoning why one of ordinary skill in this
art would have optimized the roll and strip speeds, and we note the
admission in the Specification that the speed may be “adapted” to the
application and curing properties of the coating materials. We further note
that Appellants have not alleged, much less shown, any criticality for the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007