Appeal No. 1996-2050
Application 08/146,779
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art that fabric rolls are used for squeegeeing action to
remove material from the metal strip as there is no express statement in or inference that may be drawn
from this reference that the fabric rolls disclosed therein or those known in the prior art are used to
apply solutions to the surface or a metal sheet.
We note that appellants acknowledge the following prior art in their specification: 4
Efforts to achieve uniform coating of the medium on the [metal] strip and avoid buildup
of the medium have included the use of different materials and difference surface configurations
or textures. Different materials tried have progressed from rubber, to nylon, to urethane and
more recently to composite “non-woven” rolls comprising non-woven synthetic fiber discs that
are stacked and/or bonded together, with a tough, yet flexible binders resin.
The use of non-woven rolls in place of rubber, urethane or felt rolls in ringer, oiler,
tension/bridle or support roll applications has been known for at least 10 years. Unlike dense,
closed surface rollers such as those made of rubber or nylon, the non-woven rolls such as made
by use of 3M material for example in various sizes and materials offer a high percentage void
volume that provides a degree of absorption which aids in squeegeeing and tension
functions during the rolling process.
One of the problems associated with the use of the direct rotary method particularly on
non-woven rolls has been “wet-edges.” . . . The medium builds up in these areas and forms
annular bands on the porous roll faces. At the exit side of the roll bite, some of this medium
ends up being redeposited on the strip. [Page 3, lines 12; to page 4, line 14; emphasis
supplied.]
Thus, we find that appellants admit that while non-woven surfaced coating rolls have been used to
apply coatings to metal strips, such coating rolls have “voids” which “aids in squeegeeing” but which
also causes “wet-edges” that result in redeposited medium, that is, a non-uniform coating.
We are of the opinion that the term “material” in appealed claim 1 encompasses “paper” as that
term is used in Thiele and thus the apparatus of this reference is applicable prior art. Even though it
would appear that the apparatus of Thiele could be modified by the substitution of a non-woven
surfaced roll, such as a non-woven surfaced roll as disclosed in Lux or as otherwise known as admitted
by appellants, for a rubber or other semi-resilient material, that fact alone does not make a prima facie
case of obviousness in the absence of a suggestion to one of
4It is axiomatic that our consideration of the prior art must, of necessity, include consideration of the
admitted state of the art. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007