Appeal No. 2004-1912
Application No. 09/808,584
Appellants argue that applicator 47 is used to remove
excess paint from the belt, and therefore not capable of
metering a predetermined amount of coating composition. Brief,
page 6. In response, the examiner states that appellants’
claimed invention does not include method steps and therefore
does not require an order of application. The examiner states
that Knain merely has to provide a metering bar to meter or
maintain the desired amount of material for application to the
article. Answer, page 13.
We agree with appellants’ findings regarding applicator 47.
We additionally note that in the final Office action of Paper 9,
on page 5, the examiner relied upon item 31 of Knain (rather
than item 47) for teaching a metering bar that can be used to
meter an amount of coating material to the applicator 11 of
Knain.2 However, roll 31 receives fresh paint from the paint
pickup roll 30 and deposits fresh paint on belt 11 after picking
up unapplied paint from belt 11 (see col. 2, lines 19-31; col
3., line 61 to column 4, line 2, and FIGS. 1 and 2). No
disclosure indicates that film thickness roll 31 has the
capability “to meter a predetermined amount of coating
composition to said applicator for transfer to an article
transported to the said applicator.”
Hence, Knain’s teachings regarding either applicator 47 or
roll 31 do not anticipate appellants’ claim 1.
In view of the above, we reverse the anticipation rejection
involving Knain.
2 We note that roll 31 is in the form of a roll, and that appellants’
metering bar, as discussed supra, according to the specification,
includes a metering bar in the form of a roll. See, again, FIG. 11 of
appellants’ specification in this regard.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007