Ex parte FLORIO et al. - Page 3

          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                      
          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                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007