Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
Westphal US 5,849,081 Dec. 15, 1998
The specific rejections maintained are:
1. Claims 10, 11, 16, 17, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as lacking
written descriptive support;
2. Claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Wallick ‘391 or Wallick ‘458;
3. Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wallick ‘391 or
Wallick‘458 in view of Westphal and/or Miller;
4. Claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Swift in view of Wallick ‘391 or Wallick ‘458; and
5. Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Swift in view of
Wallick ‘391 or Wallick ‘458 and further in view of Westphal and/or
Miller.
We affirm substantially for the reasons advanced by the Examiner.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, we find no
reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that there is no support in
the original written description for the claim recitation “the water and starch
combining to form an adhesive joining the first and second webs of medium
together.” The Examiner rightly interprets “the water” in this clause to be
referring to the water applied by the water supply device. There is no other
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007