Ex Parte Pehmoller et al - Page 2

            Appeal Number: 2007-0267                                                                          
            Application Number: 10/641,159                                                                    

                The appellants' invention relates to a method and apparatus for applying an                   
            additive, preferably a liquid additive, to a moving, spread-out filter material web               
            used in the tobacco-processing industry with at least one spreading element.  An                  
            understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading claim 1 which is                     
            reproduced below:                                                                                 
                1.  A method of applying an additive to a moving, spread-out filter                           
            material web used in the tobacco-processing industry, comprising:                                 
                adjusting a window that includes at least one adjustable covering                             
            element that at least partially defines an opening of the window wherein the                      
            adjusting step includes moving the at least one adjustable covering element                       
            across the window; and                                                                            
                applying the additive through the opening of the window onto the                              
            spread-out web of filter material as the web of filter material moves past                        
            wherein the amount of additive applied to the filter material is adjusted via                     
            the movement of the adjustable covering element.                                                  
                   The references of record relied on by the examiner as evidence of                          
            obviousness is:                                                                                   
            Arthur    4,511,420   Apr. 16, 1985                                                               
            Pryor     4,525,385   June 25, 1985                                                               
            Wahle     4,776,351   Oct. 11, 1988                                                               
            Butterworth    6,758,923    July 6, 2004                                                          
                   The examiner rejected claims 1, 3 to 10, 12, 14 to 16, and 18 to 20 under                  
            35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor in view of Butterworth.                          
                   The examiner rejected claims 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 10, 12, 14 to 15, 17 to 20 under              
            35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur in view of Butterworth.                         



                                                      2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013