Ex Parte Leonard - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0638                                                        
          Application No. 10/087,301                                                  

          Brief, page 3).1  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C.                
          § 134.                                                                      
               According to appellant, the invention is directed to a                 
          device for forming a very thin, uniform coating on a filamentous            
          article comprising a coating station to apply a coating liquid to           
          produce a “substantially uneven” coating on a strand or filament,           
          followed by an improvement station comprising at least two rolls            
          that periodically contact and re-contact the wet coating at                 
          different positions along the length of the filamentous article             
          to improve the uniformity of the coating (Brief, pages 7-9).  A             
          copy of representative independent claim 30 is reproduced below:            
               30.  A device comprising a coating station that directly or            
          indirectly applies a substantially uneven coating to at least               
          some of the exposed portion of a filamentous article and an                 
          improvement station comprising two or more rotating rolls that              
          periodically contact and re-contact the wet coating at different            
          positions along the length of the filamentous article, wherein              
          the number or periods of the rolls improve the uniformity of the            
          coating.                                                                    



               1                                                                      
               1We note that claims 49 and 50 depend upon previously                  
          rejected independent claim 30.  The examiner has stated that                
          claims 49 and 50 “are allowed” (Answer, page 2) but has not                 
          objected to these claims as depending upon a rejected claim.  See           
          MPEP, § 608.01(n)(V), 8th ed., p. 600-81, Rev. 2, May 2004.  This           
          lack of an objection by the examiner is moot in view of our                 
          decision infra.                                                             
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007