Appeal No. 2005-0638
Application No. 10/087,301
(4) claims 30-34, 36, 38, 39, 42-46 and 48 stand rejected
under § 102(b) as anticipated by Guertin (Answer, page 5);
(5) claim 31 stands rejected under § 102(b) as anticipated
by or, in the alternative, under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Von Kohorn (Answer, page 6);
(6) claim 31 stands rejected under § 102(b) as anticipated
by or, in the alternative, under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Guertin (Answer, page 7); and
(7) claim 47 stands rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Guertin in view of Guillermin (Answer, page 7).
Based on the totality of the record, we reverse all of the
rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection for Obviousness-type Double Patenting
The examiner provisionally rejects claims 30, 33, 34 and 36-
38 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 63-65, 67 and 68 of co-pending
Application No. 09/757,955 (final Office action dated Dec. 23,
2003, page 2). The examiner finds that the “conflicting claims
are not identical” but they are not “patentably distinct” from
each other because both applications claim a device with three or
more rotating rolls that can periodically contact and re-contact
the coating at different positions on a substrate, as well as a
coating station that initially applies a discontinuous or uneven
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007