Appeal No. 2004-1912
Application No. 09/808,584
Rebentisch
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
page 7 the answer. The examiner states that Rebentisch teaches
an apparatus having a metering bar 6 against the applicator to
meter a predetermined amount of coating and refers to Fig. 1 of
Rebentisch.
Appellants respond to this rejection on page 10 of the
brief. Appellants argue that Rebentisch discloses that the
doctor blade 6 reduces the adhesive to a desired thickness.
Appellants argue that Rebentisch does not disclose that the
doctor blade 6 is positioned against the applicator 3.
Appellants argue that in fact Figs. 1 and 2 of Rebentisch depict
a gap between the doctor blade 6 and the applicator 3.
In response thereto, on page 15 of the answer, the examiner
recognizes that Rebentisch does not explicitly state that the
doctor blade is positioned against the applicator. However, the
examiner argues that the doctor blade is against the applicator
so as to reduce, and thereby meter, a predetermined amount of
coating, and provide a desired thickness of the coating, on the
conveyed article.
We cannot find in Rebentisch (as recognized by appellants),
any explicit disclosure stating that the doctor blade is
positioned against the applicator. As pointed out by
appellants, a gap is depicted in Fig. 1 and in Fig. 2.
In view of the fact that Rebentisch lacks disclosure
indicating that the metering bar is necessarily positioned
against the applicator, we reverse this rejection.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007