Appeal 2007-4035
Application 10/007,979
Moreover, as for the claim requirement that the coating is thickest on
the substrate side near the location of the obliquely positioned dispenser and
thinner at substrate locations more remote from the dispenser location, we
determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected
such a graded spray pattern to result by using obliquely angled dispensers as
taught by Postupack in Donley’s coating process for reasons stated by the
Examiner (Answer 5; Postupack, col. 5, ll. 5-11 and 44-47).
In light of the above and for reasons set forth in the Answer,
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the subject matter embraced by
representative claim 1.
Appellants argue that dependent claims 5 and 37 require a second
coating dispenser that is obliquely arranged and that claims 7 and 39 require
that the oblique angle subtended by the axis of the second dispenser is
different from the subtended angle of the axis of the first dispenser.
However, Donley discloses the use of multiple coating dispensers (col. 2,
ll. 41-46). In this regard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to select appropriate dispenser arrangements for the multiple
coating dispensers, including selecting varying angled arrangements for each
of several dispensers used to achieve a desired faded or graded coating effect
on the substrate upon routine experimentation. After all, skill and not the
converse is expected from one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this regard, expected
beneficial results, as here obtained, are evidence of obviousness of a claimed
invention, just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013