Appeal No. 1998-3271
Application No. 08/563,156
examiner” (brief, page 11). Because Kasamatsu’s disclosure does
not include a surface 70, we assume that the appellants are
referring to surface 71 relied upon by the examiner (answer,
page 8). The appellants provide no supporting explanation for
their argument, and none is apparent. Surface 71 is at the tip
of the nozzle as shown in Kasamatsu’s figure 5, and it provides
thickness uniformity across the total width of the substrate
(col. 3, lines 28-28).
Because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, see In
re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 83 (CCPA 1975); In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974), we
affirm the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and affirm
the rejection of claim 4 which stands or falls therewith.
Rejection of claims 5-11 and 18-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Watanabe
Watanabe discloses an apparatus for applying coating
material under pressure (col. 4, lines 59-61) to a surface of a
traveling continuous web (1), comprising a longitudinally
elongated feed block (7, 8; figure 2) transversely disposed with
respect to the direction of the web travel (figure 2), the feed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007