Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
42), and a securing device (pressure rolls 36). There is further no dispute
that there is a supply device (resin application station 44) that applies a resin
solution to the corrugated web (fluted medium) before the application of
glue by the glue station 42. In one embodiment, the resin application station
includes a spray means 48 (Wallick ‘391, col. 5, ll. 19-22). In another
embodiment, the resin application station includes a roll coater 82 that
applies the resin solution only to the flute tips (Fig. 2b, col. 7, ll. 17-20).
The Examiner finds that the roll coater 82 is capable of applying water to
only a plurality of crests as claimed and, therefore, the roll coater 82 meets
the structural requirements of the water supply device of claim 10.1
Appellant argues that whether Wallick is “capable” of spraying water is not
relevant, rather, what is relevant is what Wallick actually discloses and what
Wallick discloses is a resin applicator that applies resin, not water, to the
entire corrugated medium (Br. 9).
As a first matter, Appellant’s argument is flawed because it focuses on
the sprayer described in Wallick. The rejection does not rely upon the
sprayer to meet the limitations of the claim. It is the roll coater 82 that the
Examiner finds meets the requirements of the water supply device of claim
1 We cannot agree with our dissenting colleague that it is the spray means 48
that the Examiner finds is the claimed water supply device. The rejection
cites to Figure 2b and Examiner states in the Response to Argument that
“[t]he embodiment relied upon in the rejection is that of the application to
only the crests of the corrugated web as shown in figure 2b” (Answer 7).
Figure 2b illustrates the use of coating roller 82.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007