Appeal 2007-4035
Application 10/007,979
wherein the graded coating is thickest near the side of the substrate
closest to the coating dispenser and gets gradually thinner as the distance
from the coating dispenser increases.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Donley US 4,111,150 Sept. 5, 1978
Postupack US 4,244,997 Jan. 13, 1981
Claims 1-8, 32-41, 48, 49, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Donley in view of Postupack.
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for substantially the
reasons set forth in the Answer and below.
Appellants do not furnish any arguments for rejected dependent
claims 2-4, 6, 8, 32-36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49, and 52 other than the arguments
made for independent claim 1. Hence, we consider claim 1 as the
representative claim for rejected claims 1-4, 6, 8, 32-36, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49,
and 52. We shall consider claims 5, 7, 37, and 39 separately to the extent
these claims are separately argued.
Appellants contend that “there is no motivation to combine references
that teach methods that are conducted at different temperature conditions
and produce different results (a coating having a graded thickness and a
coating having a uniform thickness but graded concentration)” (Br. 11).
Moreover, Appellants maintain that even if Donley and Postupack were
combinable:
the combination of Donley and Postupack does not teach
or suggest a method comprising positioning a coating dispenser
relative the first end of the substrate such that an axis extending
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013