Appeal 2007-4035
Application 10/007,979
Appellants have acknowledged that it is known in the art to coat
transparencies (glass) with coatings so as to form a graded coating
(Specification 1 and 2).1
Concerning the claimed coating dispenser positioning, the Examiner
has found that Postupack discloses applying a dye coating of varying
thickness or non-uniform intensity on a substrate wherein a coating nozzle is
arranged at an oblique angle to the substrate (Answer 3; Postupack, col. 3, ll.
44-46, col. 5, ll. 5-11 and 44-47, and col. 6, ll. 41-50). According to the
Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention “to utilize the orientation of nozzles taught by
Postupack in the process taught by Donley” for producing a graded coating
of a varied thickness, a coating special effect suggested by Donley as an
option (Answer 3).
In light of the teachings of Donley taken with Postupack together with
the Examiner’s determinations respecting same, Appellants’ assertions of a
lack of motivation and/or suggestion or a reasonable expectation of success
for the use of the obliquely positioned coating nozzles of Postupack in
Donley for applying the coating thereof in a graded fashion is not persuasive
of any reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
1 It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicant's specification may be
used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention and that
consideration of the prior art cited by the examiner may include
consideration of the admitted prior art found in an applicant's specification.
In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975);
In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962); In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-040, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013