Appeal 2007-1900
Application 10/605,858
We answer in the affirmative.
Galmiche describes drying by solvent removal as follows:
This removal of the solvent of the surface active agent is
advantageously effected by subjecting the hollow part lined
internally with the thixotropic cement to stoving, this stoving
being preferably conducted at two successive times, namely,
the first time at a temperature below the boiling point of
the solvent to be removed, said solvent then evaporating, to a
great extent, slowly and without forming bubbles,
the second time at a temperature above the boiling point
of the solvent of which the last traces are thus eliminated.
By proceeding thus boiling of the cement is avoided
which would risk causing disturbance of good filling of the
cavity of the treated part and causing local separations, even
pockets where the reactive mass would occur separated from
the wall to be treated, such phenomena being obviously
objectionable for the heat diffusion treatment proper which has
to take place following this solvent removal.
(Galmiche, col. 4, ll. 19-38 (emphasis added)). That the process is one of
drying to remove the solvent is clear. That the process is conducted to form
a solid pack adhering to the surface is evident from the use of a lower
temperature followed by a higher above boiling temperature to avoid
separation from the wall.
We determine that Galmiche describes drying to remove solvent and
adhering as required by claim 2.
The Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 10, 13-20, 26, 29, and 32 as obvious
over Galmiche. Appellants present arguments for four groups of claims.
We address each in turn.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013