Appeal No. 2004-2196
Application 09/902,055
the die 110 itself. There is no teaching or suggestion that the die body is bent
transversely. Compare and contrast with appellants’ Fig. 3 and 4 (see page 16, lines
10-21 of specification.)[.] [Brief, page 4; bold portion of emphasis in original deleted.]
With respect to combining Moriarty with Ludwig, appellants submit that “Ludwig teaches
away from bending the die body” because “if Ludwig’s die were bent in any way, the planar
surface would not be uniform and as such Ludwig would not produce their desired uniform
coating, i.e., Ludwig’s principle of operation would be changed” (id.). Appellants point out that
“Ludwig plainly shows that there is contact between the substrate and the perforated cylinder (die
body) and contract [sic, contact] pressure roller at the time of coating (see e.g. Figure 1 of
Ludwig) whereas Moriarity only shows contact between the substrate and the die body at the
time of coating (see e.g., Figure 1 of Moriarity)” (id.). Appellants further contend that to the
extent that the examiner relies on the intention of Ludwig and of Moriarity to provide uniform
coatings as a basis to modify Ludwig with Moriarty to obtain such coatings, there is no factual
basis in the references for the finding because Ludwig achieves a uniform coating with a coating
head having a curved surface in contact with the under surface of the perforated cylinder, wherein
the radius of the curved coating head is greater than the radius of the perforated cylinder, thus
deforming the cylinder in the region of the coating slit in order to increase the contact time
between substrate, perforated cylinder and contact pressure roller (id. pages 4-5).1 Thus,
appellants argue that the combination of Ludwig and Moriarity would not “allow Ludwig’s
invention to function as intended” (id., page 5).
Appellants further point out that neither Ludwig or Moriarty teaches or suggestes “the
desirability of having two temperature zones in the dies body and having the die body bent
because of differences [sic, in] such temperatures” (id., page 6).
With respect to combining Moriarty with Bayer, “appellants argue that this is a
duplicative rejection” in which Bayer “is even further removed from appellants’ invention than
Ludwig as there is no recitation of a heating element much less multiple temperature zones as in
the claimed invention” (id., page 8).
1 While appellants point to Ludwig’s claim 1 in this respect, we note the disclosure at col. 3, ll.
27-37, of the reference.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007