Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
neither of the applied references teach or suggest a support
“plate” is well taken. Therefore, the standing rejection of
claims 18, as well as claim 20 that depends therefrom, is not
sustainable.
Claim 25 depends from claim 21 and adds to claim 21 that
the dryer thereof includes an extractor head positioned below
the
travel path of the substrate for collecting and extracting
moisture laden air. As noted above, Bubley pertains to a
curing apparatus having a vacuum chamber 80 located below the
articles to be cured. More specifically, Bubley discloses a
curing device that is similar to Anderson’s in that both
include a radiant heat lamp assembly to cure articles
(infrared or ultraviolet lamps 12’ of Anderson, ultraviolet
lamp 28 of Bubley) and both include a source of pressurized
air that forces air past a lamp assembly to cool the lamps
(fans 6 of Anderson, fans 28 of Bubley). In addition, Bubley
provides a vacuum extractor 80, 82 “[whereby] ozone that is
normally generated within the system is automatically
withdrawn and prevented from exiting into the surrounding
atmosphere” (column 4, lines 4-6).
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007