Appeal No. 1997-3024
Application 08/325,476
thereby prevent the occurrence of film cut. According
to appellants, this objective is realized by a particular
relationship, described in detail on page 8 of the
specification, between elements of the coating head and the
web.
Independent claim 1, a copy of which is found in an
appendix to appellants’ brief, is representative of the
appealed subject matter.
The following reference is relied upon by the examiner in
support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Shibata et al 5,435,847 Jul. 25,
1995
In addition, the examiner relies upon appellants’
admitted prior art (AAPA), as set forth on pages 2-3 of the
specification, in support of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Claims 1-5 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, “for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention” (answer, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007