Appeal No. 96-0001
Application No. 08/034,532
doctor blades 15, and 16 so that a water spray impinges on the
rear side of the doctor blade. The downward spray of the
water is opposite the direction of rotation of the heating
drum. The spray of water so applied removes undesirable
buildup on the back side of the doctor blade (See column 2,
lines 38-53).
In our opinion, the examiner has failed to make out a
prima facie case of obviousness. Assuming arguendo, that
Eolkin is not non-analogous art, both claims 15 to the method
and 16 to the apparatus require directing a spray of aqueous
liquid toward and
along the line of contact of the doctor with the coated side
of
the moving coated paper web such that the direction of the
spray is toward and in the direction of motion with the moving
coated paper web. It is apparent from inspection of the
Eolkin reference that the spraying of water on the back of the
doctor blade is in a direction opposite to the direction of
the rotation of the drying drum and, hence, opposite the film
adhering to the drying drum. The examiner has failed to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007