Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
our discussion of claim 18, the applied references do not
disclose or suggest a support plate for the substrate.
Accordingly, the standing § 103 rejection of claim 26, as well
as
claim 27 that depends therefrom, is not sustainable.
Claim 28 calls for the dryer of claim 25 to include a
first
extractor manifold along one side of the travel path and a
second extractor manifold along the laterally opposite side of
the travel path. The examiner has not explained, and it is
not apparent to us, where the applied references teach or
suggest this feature. Accordingly, the standing § 103
rejection of claim 28 is not sustainable.
Claim 29 is directed to a dryer comprising a dryer head
positioned in facing relationship to the processed side of a
substrate, a heat lamp assembly “disposed within the dryer
head,” and a reflector plate “disposed intermediate the dryer
head and the heat lamp assembly.” In that the heat lamp
assembly is required to be “disposed within” the dryer head,
it is not understood how the reflector plate can be “disposed
intermediate” the heat lamp assembly and the component (i.e.,
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007