Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A process for making a papermaking belt
comprising a reinforcing element and a resinous
framework joined thereto, the process comprising the
steps of:
(a) providing a forming surface having a
longitudinal direction and a transverse direction;
(b) providing an extrudable resinous material;
(c) providing at least a first extrusion die
structured to extrude the resinous material, wherein the
at least first extrusion die is configured to move
relative to the forming surface in at least a first
direction.
(d) supplying the resinous material into the at
least first extrusion die and extruding the resinous
material therefrom onto the forming surface in a pre-
selected pattern comprising a plurality of discrete
protuberances, thereby forming a resinous framework;
(e) continuously moving the at least first
extrusion die relative to the forming surface in the
first direction;
(f) causing the resinous framework and the
reinforcing element to join together; and
(g) solidifying the resinous framework joined to
the reinforcing element, thereby forming the papermaking
belt.
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Trokhan in view of Rodish.
We refer to pages 3-4 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in this rejection. At the top of page 4,
the examiner acknowledges that Trokhan fails to teache “applying
the plurality of resin beads with the moving extrusion dies.”
The examiner states “it would have been obvious to one skilled
in the art use any conventional means of applying the resin
pattern to the fabric with the expectation of producing the
desired result.” The examiner states that Rodish teaches
“applying resin pattern to a moving fabric web, where the resin
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007