Appeal No. 2004-1912
Application No. 09/808,584
applicator and cleansing the nip between the rod and the
applicator. See page 10, line 27 through page 11, line 4, of
the specification and Figure 11.
In view of the above, we interpret the claimed phrase “a
metering bar position against said applicator” as requiring that
a portion of metering bar bears on the surface of the applicator
roller. The metering bar can include a rotable rod disposed in
the applicator-contacting end of the metering bar as depicted in
Figure 11.
II. The Anticipation Rejections
As an initial matter, we note that the burden is on the
examiner to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness or
anticipation. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175, 37 USPQ2d
1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We also note that when an examiner relies upon a theory of
inherency, “the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or
technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that
the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the
teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d
1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).
We now consider each of the applied references regarding
whether the applied art anticipates the claim limitation of “a
metering bar positioned against” the applicator “to meter a
predetermined amount of coating composition to said applicator
for transfer to an article transported to the said applicator.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007