Appeal No. 2004-2196
Application 09/902,055
is no requirement that this would prevent flexing of the die in a transverse action as claimed,
since transverse action would occur perpendicular to the radius of the backing roll (id.).
The examiner maintains the position that the combination of Ludwig and Moriarty would
have suggested using the thermal adjustment system of Moriarty in the die of Ludwig “because
Ludwig teaches a system of coating by extruding heated coating material from a die, and
Moriarty teaches a method of controlling extrudate dimensions when extruding heated coating
material from a die using embedded electrical heating elements, which provide precise control of
the die lip area” (id., page 14). The examiner finds that this would result in “heating elements
. . . provided across the lip area of Ludwig (at the outlet of the slit), resulting in a series of
separately controlled temperature zones across the longitudinal axis of the die that flex the die
transversely to and against the direction of travel of the backing material based on the different
temperatures from the heating elements within the die body” (id.). The examiner further
maintains that Moriarty would have taught the use of temperature zones and the “die body
bending due to differences of temperature” (id., pages 14-15).
The principal issues in this appeal and the arguments raised by the examiner and
appellants require the interpretation of the terms of appealed claim 1. Indeed, in order to review
the examiner’s application of the combined teachings of Ludwig and Moriarity to appealed claim
1, we must first interpret the language thereof by giving the claim terms their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the written description provided in appellants’ specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, without reading into these claims any
limitation or particular embodiment which is disclosed in the specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11,
15 (CCPA 1978).
We determine that the plain language of appealed claim 1 requires that, inter alia, the at
least two zones are temperature-controlled along its longitudinal axis, and includes within its
scope any die having two or more areas along its longitudinal axis that are independently
controlled with respect to temperature, the differences in temperature in at least two zones
induces bending at least to some extent, however small, of any part, however small, of the die
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007