Appeal No. 1999-2205
Application No. 08/738,469
rebut this contention on pages 2-4 of their reply brief with
the well documented proposition that the examiner has
misinterpreted the appealed independent claim. We agree. For
the reasons thoroughly set forth in the reply brief, this
claim must be interpreted as requiring the removal of the
entire coating having the second thickness from the web rather
than “simply the undesired portion of the coating not all the
coating” as urged by the examiner.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s section 103 rejection of all appealed claims as
being unpatentable over the Japanese reference in view of
Takeda and further in view of Tanaka alone or yet further in
view of Fitzgerald.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Bradley R. Garris )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Charles F. Warren ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007