Appeal No. 2004-1912
Application No. 09/808,584
said applicator for transfer to an article transported to the
said applicator.”
Moreover, although the examiner asserts that Schrauwers’
metering bar 16 prevents the combination of excess of applied
coating material and freshly coating material from building up
to provide a different thickness of coating to each subsequently
fed article, we cannot find such disclosure in Schrauwers.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
and 9 as being anticipated by Schrauwers.
Shiraishi
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
page 7 of the answer. The examiner states that Shiraishi
discloses a metering bar 7 positioned against the applicator to
meter a predetermined amount of coating, and refers to Fig. 1 of
Shiraishi.
Appellants’ response is forth on pages 9-10 of the brief.
Appellants state that Shiraishi teaches that bending blade 7
exerts a force against rubber roll 5, which causes the rubber to
flex to an arcuate shape, that is complementary to the bending
blade, until one axial end of the rubber roll is in direct
contact with the sheet glass 1, and the opposite axial end of
the rubber roll is spaced upwardly from the sheet of glass.
Appellants state that the bending blade 7 of Shiraishi thus
impacts the way in which the composition, that is already on the
applicator roller, is coated onto the sheet of glass by the
applicator. Appellants state that bending blade 7 does not
meter a predetermined amount of coating composition to the
applicator for transfer to an article transported to the
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007