Appeal No. 1997-2931
Application 08/237,034
Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the references applied in the
rejection of claim 1, et al., and further in view of Steel or
Bauling. The examiner considers that it would have been
further obvious to utilize a backing belt instead of a backing
roller for one or both of the backing surfaces of the primary
references in view of the teachings of Steel or Bauling.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the references applied in the rejection of
claim 1, et al., and further in view of Hornbostel. The
examiner also considers that it would have been obvious to
provide the backing roller of the coating applicator units of
the primary references with air cushion means for urging the
coated web into engagement with the applicator unit in view of
Hornbostel.
Opinion
The linchpin of the examiner’s rejections is found in the
following statement found in the answer:
Kuhnel illustrates the well known expedient of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007