Appeal 2007-1385
Application 09/997,347
involving masking of the water-repellent-treatment-free area
before water-repellent treatment, even after removal of the
masking, effects of the adhesive component of the masking
material still remain on the substrate surface, resulting in the
undesired effects of a large water contact angle.
(Yoshinori ¶ 0005).
4. Yoshinori describes a process which is an improvement over other
processes including the masking process. The improved method is a
method of coating the entire window surface and then selectively
removing the coating were unwanted by irradiating the areas to be
removed with UV light. The process is said to be very simple, and
with high productivity (Yoshinori ¶ 0007).
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(emphasis omitted).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007). The question of obviousness is
resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the
scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where
in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See also, KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013