Appeal No. 1998-3271
Application No. 08/563,156
passageways (41, 42) terminating in apertures formed in the tip
portion exterior surface (figures 2 and 4), the apertures
communicating with the reservoir via respective associated
coating feed passageways in the feed block (figures 2 and 4).
The examiner argues that Landis discloses a “longitudinally
elongated passageway 40 in the feed block” (answer, page 6).
Landis, however, shows hopper 6 as being generally cylindrical
(col. 3, lines 54-56). Thus, it reasonably appears that die 40
within hopper 6 is cylindrical rather than elongated as argued by
the examiner.
The examiner argues that Landis’ hopper 6 is elongated
versus its width (answer, page 10). The appellants’ claim 5,
however, requires that the coating feed passageways are “serially
disposed with a longitudinally elongated passageway in said feed
block.” If the longitudinal direction is considered to be the
vertical direction in Landis’ figures, as argued by the examiner,
then the coating feed passageways are not serially disposed with
this passageway. Instead, they are serially disposed in a
direction perpendicular to the longitudinally elongated
passageway.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007