Ex Parte Schmidt - Page 2



                Appeal 2005-2349                                                                             
                Application 09/961,126                                                                       

                                             INTRODUCTION                                                    
                The claims are directed to an apparatus including a corrugating                              
                device, a water supply device, a starch supply device, and a securing device.                
                The apparatus is intended to be used to manufacture a corrugated product,                    
                i.e., corrugated board.  Claim 10 is illustrative:                                           
                10.  An apparatus for manufacturing a corrugated product comprising:                         
                      a corrugating device adapted to form a plurality of flutes on first and                
                second sides of a first web of medium, each flute having a crest;                            
                      a water supply device applying water to only a plurality of crests on                  
                the first side of the first web;                                                             
                      a starch supply device applying starch to only the plurality of crests on              
                the first side of the first web after the water supply device has applied water              
                to only the plurality of crests; and                                                         
                      a securing device adapted to secure a second web of medium to the                      
                plurality of crests on the first side of the first web to form a single-faced                
                corrugated board, the water and starch combining to form an adhesive                         
                joining the first and second webs of medium together.                                        
                The Examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, ¶ 1, 102(b),                         
                and 103(a) as set forth below.  With regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C.                
                §§ 102(b) and 103(a), the Examiner relies upon the following prior art                       
                references as evidence of unpatentability:                                                   
                Swift US 1,199,508 Sept. 26, 1916                                                            
                Wallick US 5,292,391 Mar. 8, 1994                                                            
                Wallick US 5,332,458 Jul. 26, 1994                                                           
                Miller US 5,609,711 Mar. 11, 1997                                                            
                                                     -2-                                                     




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007