Appeal No. 96-3192 Page 8
Application No. 08/247,672
(2) provide support for the web during the second coating
process. The examiner's determinations of obviousness would
have (1) replaced Brezinski's first coating system (i.e.,
coater 33 and backup roll 32) with a press gap coating system
as taught by Sollinger, and (2) replaced Brezinski's second
coating system (i.e., trough 35 and coating roller 34) with a
coating system as taught by Warner. However, these
modifications would not have resulted, absent impermissible
hindsight, in the backing roll used in the press gap of the
first coating system providing support for the web during the
second coating process. In addition, it appears to us that
the prior art applied to claim 13 would not have suggested
that the claimed "rubberized surface" on the rotatable roll
which applies the first coating substance to the web in a
press gap. While roll 30 of Warner has a covering 31 of
rubber, roll 30 is a support/backup roll, not a roll which
applies the coating to the web.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 13 are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, the decision of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007