Appeal No. 96-0001
Application No. 08/034,532
features of the claimed invention are taught or suggested by
the combination of the references to Eolkin and the admitted
state of the prior art, as discussed in the ‘Grounds for
Rejection’ above” lacks any factual basis in Eolkin or the
“admitted state of the art”.
OTHER ISSUES
In Paper No. 14, mailed on October 31, 1995, this
application was remanded to the examiner for consideration of
a terminal disclaimer filed in response to an obviousness-type
double patenting rejection proferred by the examiner. In
Paper No. 16, mailed February 6, 1996, the examiner
acknowledged the terminal disclaimer and, accepted the same as
overcoming the obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Accordingly, the question of obviousness-type double patenting
is not before this panel.
In claim 15, we note that in line 2 of said claim the
phrase “said paper web” lacks antecedent support in the body
of the
claim. Claim 15 broadly recites “a moving coated web” not a
paper web. We also observe that in appellant’s apparatus
claims, certain elements are claimed in terms of the so-called
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007