Appeal No. 2001-0912
Application No. 09/082,957
claimed in the present invention” because “[f]igs. 1 and 3 of the
present invention illustrates [sic] that the processing solution
will remain in the nip of the two rollers even when the rollers
are not being rotated” whereas “any retaining of processing
solution in the nip [of Urasaki] must occur as a result of the
rotation of the rollers and liquid having the appropriate
viscosity” (reply brief, page 1). This argument cannot be
considered persuasive.
As previously indicated, the appealed claims must be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. Hyatt, id. For this reason and because the
claims under review contain no recitation concerning when and
under what circumstances solution must remain in the nip portion,
the appellants’ above noted argument is necessarily unconvincing
since it is considerably more narrow than the claims to which it
is directed.
For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, we hereby
sustain the examiner’s Section 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 2,
9, 10, 22, 27 and 29 as being anticipated by Urasaki.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007