Appeal No. 2005-0638
Application No. 10/087,301
limitation” (e.g., Reply Brief, page 5). Although it appears
that appellant’s claim construction does not differ substantially
from the examiner’s claim construction, we determine that the
claimed “coating station” merely defines an area where a coating
device is capable of applying an initial “substantially uneven”
coating, as defined in appellant’s specification (page 4,
¶[0023]). See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697,
1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(During examination proceedings, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification).
However, on this record, the examiner has failed to
establish that the spray nozzles of Von Kohorn or Guertin or the
pipe of Severini are capable of applying a “substantially uneven”
initial coating as defined by appellant (specification, page 4,
¶[0023]). See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, the examiner has
not presented any evidence on this record to support the
allegation that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would know
there must be at least an on/off valve to stop the flow of
coating between runs. This would provide a means of coating
unevenly the filamentous article.” Answer, page 8 (see also
pages 11 and 12). The examiner has failed to point to any
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007