Appeal No. 2000-1060
Application No. 09/030,378
different” (request, page 3). That may be correct, considering
that the taper was that of a frusto-conical surface of a sealing
ring.
The present case, in contrast, involves the angle of a jet
for blowing powder off of a web and, unlike in Heinrich, it is
not reasonable to interpret Aindow as requiring a very small
angle of taper. Aindow’s illustration of an air jet (figure 5,
item 152) and teaching that the air jet is for blowing powder off
of a web (col. 7, lines 35-39) in no way indicates that the angle
of the air jet to the web is to be limited to that illustrated.
The most reasonable interpretation of the reference is that any
angle which is effective for blowing off the powder is suitable.
As stated in our decision (page 6), one of ordinary skill in the
art, when applying Aindow’s air jet to the admitted prior art
paste-point coating and scatter coating device (as, it is
undisputed, the applied prior art would have led such a person to
do), would have optimized the angle of the air jet and thereby
arrived at the steep angles recited in the appellants’ claims.
See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007