Appeal 2007-4035
Application 10/007,979
464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The
motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but
may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the
prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”). The analysis
supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant field to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. “The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739,
82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Concerning representative claim 1, Appellants do not dispute that
Donley discloses or suggests a method for forming a coating on a glass
ribbon substrate surface downstream of a forming chamber using a coating
dispenser through which coating material is supplied towards the substrate to
deposit the coating on the substrate (Donley, Abstract, col. 2, l. 4- col. 3, l.
30). Also, Appellants do not argue that Donley does not disclose or suggest
depositing the coating in a manner such that a graded or varied thickness
coating film can be obtained (Donley, col. 3, ll. 63-68). Thus, Donley
discloses or suggests a method of coating in a manner that substantially
corresponds to the representative claim 1 method but for an explicit teaching
of a particular coating dispenser positioning step, as recited, wherein the
coating is graded such that the coating is thickest near the substrate side
closest to the dispenser and gradually thins out at substrate areas located at
increasing distances from the dispenser. Moreover, we again note that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013