Appeal No. 2004-1912
Application No. 09/808,584
the transverse direction of the sheet 1 of glass, from the end
5b of the rubber roll 5 or the rubber roll 5.
The rubber roll 5 is supplied with paste 2 at a constant
rate by the doctor blade 6. This doctor blade is positioned
adjacent to the rubber roll 5. See col. 2, lines 54-55 and col.
3, lines 15-16.
Paste 2 is coated within the gap on the sheet 1 of glass,
by the rubber roll 5, and has its thickness progressively
smaller in the transverse direction of the sheet 1 of glass from
the end 5b of the rubber roll 5 or the edge 1a of the sheet 1 of
glass toward the end 5a of the rubber roll 5. See Fig. 2. See
also col. 3, lines 26-36.
Hence, there is no indication that the metering bar 7
prevents the combination of an excess of applied coating
material and freshly applied coating material from building up,
to provide a different thickness to each subsequently fed
article, as asserted by the examiner. As such, the examiner’s
assertion that Shiraishi anticipates the claimed limitation
regarding a metering bar positioned against an applicator “to
meter a predetermined amount of coating composition to said
applicator for transfer to an article transported to the said
applicator”, is not supported by the disclosure of Shiraishi.
With regard to the aforementioned doctor blade 6, this
blade is positioned “adjacent to the rubber roll for supplying
the paste at a constant rate to the rubber roll”. See column 2,
lines 1-3. As such, the doctor blade is not “positioned
against” the rubber roll, as required by appellants’ claims.
We therefore reverse this rejection.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007