Appeal No. 1997-1380
Application 08/301,508
an apparatus having an integrated printhead comprising a
planarizing means as recited in claim 2. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 2, or of claims 3 through 5, 11 and 12 which depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Helinski in view of
Pomerantz.
Since Chevalier’s disclosure of a method and apparatus
for manufacturing a fibrous product having an adhesive coating
does not cure the foregoing deficiencies of Helinski and
Pomerantz with respect to the subject matter recited in claim
2, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 9 and 10, which depend from claim 2, as being
unpatentable over Helinski in view of Pomerantz, and further
in view of Chevalier.
Dependent claim 14 requires the method recited in parent
claim 13 to further comprise the step of planarizing the layer
to form a substantially planar target surface. Here, the
examiner’s conclusion (see pages 6 and 7 in the main answer)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007