Appeal No. 2002-0515
Application No. 09/222,092
This argument is not persuasive because it is not directed to the apparatus. The apparatus of
the claimed invention and DeVries both detect emitted fluorescence from a binder applied to
a substrate.
Appellants argue that “Appellants’ method is used to determine the distribution and
dosage of the reactive binder. DeVries et al[.] does not employ a material which is reactive
and dispersed throughout the sample being inspected. The teachings of DeVries et al[.] can
not [sic., cannot] therefore be construed as disclosing any means for determining the dosage
and distribution of a material such as the binder required in Appellants’ invention.” (Brief,
p. 5).
We do not agree. DeVries discloses the invention is used to detect the emitted
fluorescence from a coating that has been coated or coextruded on to a structure. DeVries
discloses the apparatus can detect the presences, absences and thickness of the coated or
coextruded layer. (Col. 6, ll. 25-41). Thus, DeVries discloses and apparatus and method of
measuring the distribution of the coating on the substrate.
Appellants argue that “[n]one of the systems discussed by DeVries at columns 7 and
8, correlates binder dosage and distribution on particulate materials of the type used to
produce composite materials with signals derived from a video image.” (Brief, p. 6).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007