Appeal No. 98-0978
Application 08/505,650
performing some function. While broad, this limitation is not
indefinite. With respect to claim 10, the examiner states
that it cannot be accurately determined if the properties of
the web or the spacing between the removal and depositing
stations are responsible for the special feature claimed for
the apparatus of the claim. In our view, however, the fact
that either one of these may be responsible merely denotes
that the claim is broad rather than indefinite. Finally, with
respect to claim 18, the recitation of a magnetic hardenable
material, even if a double inclusion from the hardenable
material limitation of claim 10, does not render the claim
indefinite, inasmuch as the metes and bounds of the invention
can be readily determined.
Turning to the three rejections based on prior art,
it is our finding that the prior art of record is silent with
respect to the necessity of providing a web with low thermal
inertia. The prior art also does not recognize that the low
thermal inertia feature is necessary to permit the change of
the depositing pattern with each cycle of the web.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007