Appeal 2007-2774
Application 10/285,632
amount of paint from the "dirty" water-based flush solution being treated so
that the filtered flush solution obtained after treatment and directed to the
spray application equipment does not stick to the equipment and render it
inoperable.
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not contest, that Knipe
describes the process of claim 1 but for describing a used/dirty flush solution
to contain between 5 and 20 % by volume of paint (FFs 27-31). The
Examiner finds that Mahoney taught that "large" quantities of excess paint
may have to be cleaned up with flush solution (FF 32) and "extrapolated" the
teachings of Mizuno to find that Mizuno taught treating used/dirty flush
solutions containing 1% to 50% paint by volume (FFs 33-36 and 44). The
Examiner then concluded that a skilled artisan would have recognized that
any used flush solution may contain "large" quantities, e.g., 5-20% by
volume, of paint based on the teachings of Mahoney and Mizuno (FF 36).
Appellant contends that the prior art does not teach or suggest that a
flush solution containing 5% to 20% by volume of paint could be
successfully treated as claimed (Br. at 10-13). Appellant expressly directs
our attention to eight different patent disclosures of record, including
Mahoney and Mizuno, previously submitted as rebuttal evidence that typical
used/dirty flush solutions being regenerated and recycled contained no more
than 1% paint by volume (FFs 38-40).
This appeal raises two issues. First, is the Examiner factually correct
in asserting that Mizuno describes dirty flush soutions containing 1 to 50%
paint by volume. Second, does the rebuttal evidence submitted by Appellant
outweigh the evidence of unpatentability relied upon by the Examiner.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013