Appeal No. 95-1743
Application 08/068,345
penetration of release agent through the web seems somewhat
unlikely.
Nor have we overlooked the examiner's finding that "at least
some release material is absorbed through the fabric is not
disputed" (Examiner's answer, fifth page, footnote 5). But, it
is plain that appellants dispute whether Edison describes the
claimed invention. In particular, appellants make quite a point
of noting that Edison applies the release agent to one side of
the web and the adhesive to the other side. Contrary to the
examiner's finding, we think it plain that the examiner's finding
is in dispute. Nor do we think this is a case where the
examiner's inherency finding is reasonable. Rather, we think the
examiner has engaged in considerable speculation to make the
finding that release agent penetrates the web.
Lastly, as a matter of claim interpretation (an issue of
law), we no not believe that the word "applying" in the phrase
"applying an adhesive material to the release agent" (claim 13)
means “applying adhesive to the release agent" when the web is
being rolled. Appellants apply the release agent via spray head
35 (Figure 3). Adhesive is applied to the web at first roller 41
(Figure 4) being placed evenly on conveyer belt 36 at blade 37
(also Figure 4). There is nothing in appellants' description of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007