Appeal No. 2005-0381 Page 7
Application No. 09/841,380
We are cognizant of the fact that, in the Figure 3 embodiment of Hess, the web 214a
travels on the surface of the roll 216 such that, in the process of Hess, the coating is deposited
directly on web 214. This, however, does not change the fact that the positioning of the spray
head and roll of Hess meet the requirements of claim 33. Suffice it to say that the claim recites
only two structures, the transfer surface and spray head, and the apparatus of Hess has those
structures arranged such that the apparatus of Hess is capable of operating as claimed when the
web is repositioned to contact a different part of roll 216.
We cannot agree with Appellants that the claim requires any more structure than
described by Hess. Nor must Hess show or, for that matter, describe the apparatus as operating
in conformance with the functional limitations of the claim. Again, the claim is directed to an
apparatus. We agree with the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 33 as anticipated by Hess.
Obviousness of claims 33-35, 37, 38, 43, 51, 52, 54-59
Claims 33-35, 37, 38, 43, 51, 52, and 54-59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hess and Nakajima. Appellants group the claims as follows (Brief, p.
11):
Claims 33-35, 51, 52, 54, 56, and 57 (Group I)
Claims 37 and 58 (Group III)
Claim 38 (Group IV)
Claim 43 (Group V)
Claim 55 (Group VII)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007