Appeal 2007-4035
Application 10/007,979
through a delivery end of said coating dispenser subtends a
predetermined oblique angle with the substrate to form a graded
coating 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.
(Br. 12 and 13)
The principal issues raised in this appeal are: Have Appellants
identified reversible error by the asserted lack of motivation to combine the
applied references and/or by the asserted lack of direction to or teaching of a
coating step using a dispenser positioned as recited in claim 1 to obtain the
recited graded coating even if the references were combinable?
We answer these questions in the negative as we are not persuaded of
any reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection by these
contentions. Accordingly, we affirm the stated rejection for substantially the
reasons set forth in the Answer and below.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires
a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary considerations. Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[A]nalysis
[of whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious] need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. Teleflex,
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). See DyStar
Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013