Appeal No. 2004-1912
Application No. 09/808,584
Schäfer ‘256
The examiner relies upon the inherency theory stating that
“a gap to some degree would exist between metering roll and
respective applicator roll to enable the coating material to
pass therethrough”. Answer, page 12. The examiner does not
provide a factual basis to support his inherency theory other
than referring to Figure 1, and the recited phrase “a pair of
metering rolls each juxtaposed with a respective one said
applicator rolls operatively connected with the reservoir
means.”
On page 3 of the brief, appellants argue that Schäfer ‘256
does not teach a metering bar; rather, Schäfer teaches a
metering roll. We find that Schäfer teaches applicator rollers
1,2 (see FIG. 1). Schäfer discloses, “metering rolls 3,4 form a
gap with the smooth rubberized applicator rolls (FIG.1)”. See
column 4, lines 15-17. However, FIG. 1 does not show an item 3.
Item 4 is shown near item 6. Item 6 is described as “a heatable
roller wiper 6 (FIG. 1) on the applicator rollers 1,2 which are
cleaned by a blade wiper”. See column 4, lines 38-41. Hence, we
agree with appellants that Schäfer does not teach a metering
bar. Rather, Schäfer discloses a wiper blade 6. Hence, Schäfer
does not anticipate “a metering bar positioned against said
applicator”.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the anticipation
rejection involving Schäfer ‘256.
Schäfer ‘620
In this rejection, the examiner finds that metering bar 2
is positioned against the applicator, and refers to FIG. 1.
Answer, page 5. Schäfer ‘620 does teach metering rolls 2 and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007