Appeal No. 1998-1616
Application No. 08/570,633
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Considering first the rejection of independent claim 1,
this claim sets forth, in part, the step of
compacting and partially drying the coating of the
carbonaceous particles while removing entrapped
water, air bubbles and particles from within the
openings passing through the substrate by passing
the substrate between a pair of opposed resilient
circular rollers spaced apart from each other so as
to deform as the substrate passes between the
rollers and to remove said entrapped water, air
bubbles and particles from within the openings by
suction.
Claim 14, the only other independent claim on appeal, contains
similar language.
There appears to be no dispute that Minten, the
examiner’s primary reference, discloses the subject matter of
claim 1 except for the above noted step. Instead, Minten
discloses that carbonaceous particles on the surface of the
substrate and entrapped water, air bubbles and particles
within the openings of the substrate should be removed by
compressed air (column 9, line 68 through column 10, line 6).
The essence of the examiner’s rejection is that it would have
been obvious to provide this step in Minten in view of the
teachings of Altenpohl. Specifically, the examiner posits:
Altenpohl is relied upon to show the use of rollers
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007