Appeal No. 96-0001
Application No. 08/034,532
provide a reference which would have provided motivation to
the ordinarily skilled routineer to have modified Eolkin’s
spraying apparatus and method as required by the claimed
invention before us.
We cannot subscribe to appellant’s argument that the
Eolkin reference is so-called “non analogous” prior art.
Whether or not a reference may be considered to be from a “non
analogous” prior art is a question of fact. We are not
convinced that the problem dealt with in Eolkin, that is, the
formation of undesirable buildup on the back of a doctor blade
is irrelevant to the question which confronted appellant here.
While Eolkin does direct the spray from a direction downstream
of the doctor as required by appellant’s claims, the spray in
Eolkin is not in the direction of motion of the moving coating
on the drum in Eolkin as required by appellant’s claims.
Contrary to the examiner’s
representation from page 4 of her answer, the aqueous spray in
Eolkin is not in the direction of motion of the drum. Rather,
the aqueous spray in Eolkin is in the direction opposite to
the direction of travel of the drum. Thus, the examiner’s
conclusion from page 11 of her answer that “all of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007