Appeal 2006-2159
Application 09/862,234
b) applying each fluid coating composition onto a substrate to
form a plurality of separate and distinct topcoat layers directly or
indirectly overlying the substrate,
wherein the plurality of topcoat compositions are applied to the
substrate simultaneously with a multi-cavity slot die coater, and
wherein the plurality fluid coating compositions is applied to
the substrate at a point opposite where the substrate is between two
adjacent supports.
The Examiner has relied on the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Schirmer US 4,146,451 Mar. 27, 1979
Rosenberry US 5,719,227 Feb. 17, 1998
Sartor US 5,728,430 Mar. 17, 1998
Most US 5,871,585 Feb. 16, 1999
Simpson US 6,287,706 Sep. 11, 2001
The following rejections are before this merits panel for review in this
appeal:
(1) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 16-19, 25, 41-44, 47-50, 56, 57, 59-64,
66-70, and 72-74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simpson in view of Sartor (Answer 3);
(2) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 16-19, 25, 41-44, 47-50, 56, 57, 59-64,
66-70, and 72-74 stand rejected under § 103(a) over Simpson in
view of Sartor and Rosenberry (Answer 8); and
(3) claims 11, 26, 29, 33-39, 46, 55, 58, 65 and 71 stand rejected
under § 103(a) over Simpson in view of Sartor or Simpson in view
of Sartor and Rosenberry, both further in view of Schirmer
(Answer 9).
We REVERSE all rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16-19, 25,
26, 29, 33-39, 44, 48, and 55-74, essentially for the reasons stated in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007