Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
through the heat lamps and onto a substrate travel path. For
the reasons explained above in our discussion of claim 1,
Anderson fails to teach or suggest this arrangement.
Accordingly, the standing
§ 103 rejection of claims 23 and 24 is not sustainable.
Rejections (c) and (d)
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and adds to claim 1 that the
dryer thereof includes an extractor head positioned below the
travel path of the substrate for collecting and extracting
moisture laden air. The examiner cites Bubley for its
teaching of a curing apparatus having a vacuum chamber 80
located below the articles to be cured and takes the position
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide a vacuum chamber below the travel path of
Anderson’s web. However, Bubley does nothing to cure the
deficiencies of Anderson
regarding the lack of any teaching or suggestion of providing
a
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007