Appeal No. 2004-1912
Application No. 09/808,584
4, shown in FIG. 1. Appellants’ claimed metering bar is
interpreted to include rolls (see appellants’ embodiment shown
in FIG. 11, as stated, supra, on pages 5-6 of this decision).
Hence, the issue becomes, whether metering rolls 2 and 4 are
positioned against the applicator.
Appellants state that in col. 4, at lines 49-52, Schäfer
‘620 indicates that the metering rolls are so arranged that a
narrow gap remains between the metering roll 2,4 in the
respective applicator roll.
On page 13 of the answer, the examiner responds, and states
that FIG. 1 shows that each metering roll is positioned against
the applicator roll.
We note that a claim must be read in conjunction with the
specification and drawings. In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 267, 204
USPQ 988, 995 (CCPA 1980). The specification of Schäfer ‘620
describes the figure as showing how the “metering rolls are so
arranged that a narrow gap remains between the metering roll 2,4
and the respective applicator roll”. See column 4, lines 48-52.
This is not the same as a metering bar “positioned against” an
applicator.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, 11-13, 16, 18-20, 25-27,
32-35 and 57 as being anticipated Schäfer ‘620.
Knain
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner states that Knain
teaches an apparatus for coating articles comprising an
applicator, a conveyor, and a metering bar 47 opposed to or
against the applicator, and refers to Fig. 1 of Knain.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007