Appeal 2007-2133
Application 10/790,502
is not necessary to establish obviousness). The amount of time necessary to
conduct thermal curing by infrared radiation is a result effective variable that
would one of ordinary skill in the art would determine based on the coating
composition and the material in the plate. See, e.g., In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456-58, 105 USPQ 233, 235-37 (CCPA 1955). (it is not
inventive to discover by routine experimentation optimum or workable
ranges for general conditions disclosed in the prior art).
Finally, with respect to the last ground of rejection under § 103(a),
contrary to Appellants’ position (Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 10-11), we
determined above one of ordinary skill in this can apply Siebert’s liquid,
flowable, epoxy nitrile resin reactive precursor coating composition by
brushing or pouring in light of Pellegri, and thus, can use such composition
in a screen printing process. Indeed, there is no limitation on the “screen
printing” process as claimed. See Self, 671 F.2d at 1348-349, 213 USPQ at
5.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Pellegri and Siebert alone, combined further with
McGinniss, and combined still further with Canfield, with Appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 25 through 38
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
19
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013