Appeal 2007-2774
Application 10/285,632
45. The process of claim 1 wherein the filtered
flush solution is 59% to 95% as effective in
removing paint from the spray application
equipment as fresh flush solution.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-16, 38-39, 43
and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner relies upon the following
prior art3 of record:
Mizuno US 4,656,059 Apr. 7, 1987
Knipe US 5,854,190 Dec. 29, 1998
Mahoney US 6,627,086 B2 Sep. 30, 2003
Mizuno and Knipe qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); Mahoney
qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-
16, 38-39, 43 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Knipe, Mahoney and Mizuno.
Appellant argues that the combination of Knipe, Mahoney and
Mizuno fails to teach or suggest "providing dirty flush solution, wherein the
dirty flush solution contains from 5% to 20% by volume paint," as recited in
all of the claims on appeal. Appellant contends that, according to the prior
art, a typical dirty flush solution contains less than 1% by volume paint.
Appellant relies on the following prior art, in addition to Mizuno, Knipe and
Mahoney, (Br. at 20):
Forney US 3,990,869 Nov. 9, 1976
Gabel US 3,990,986 Nov. 9, 1976
Puchalski US 4,440,647 Apr. 3, 1984
Leitz US 4,629,572 Dec. 16, 1986
Arots US 4,686,047 Aug. 11, 1987
Merrell US 4,853,132 Aug. 1, 1989
Rey US 5,240,509 Aug. 31, 1993
3 No references to et al. or Jr. are made in this opinion.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013