Appeal No. 96-2170
Application 08/236,570
the downstream bar adjacent to the sharp edge, and a
low surface energy covering applied to the land,
adjacent to its downstream edge to present a generally
undulating surface, wherein the low surface energy
coverings do not extend completely to the edges of the
downstream bar and the land.
This portion of the claim is illustrated in Figure 16 and
described on page 13 of the specification.
Claim 1 stands rejected as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of the admitted prior art and the Japanese
reference. After describing the applicable portions of the
admitted prior art, the examiner acknowledges that it fails to
teach placing a low surface energy coating on the surface of the
downstream bar (Answer, page 4, lines 1 through 3). The examiner
then focuses upon the Japanese reference, explaining that it
teaches placing a low energy surface coating on the upstream lip
of the die in a die coating apparatus for the purpose of
preventing disruption of the coating bead (Answer, page 4, lines
8 through 10). Again, the examiner acknowledges shortcomings,
admitting that, as compared to the appellants' claim, the
Japanese reference
fails to teach a low energy covering applied to the
surface of the downstream bar or . . . which does not
extend completely to the edges of the upstream and
downstream bars of the die (Answer, page 4, lines 15
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007