Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
200. Both the coater of Wallick and the coater of Appellant consist of an
application roll that picks up a liquid from a tray and a second roll that
removes excess liquid from the first roll. As further found by the Examiner,
“[t]he Specification does not define the wetting supply device as a particular
structure any different from those in the references” (Answer 13). Given the
similarity in structure between the Wallick roll coater and the roll coater of
Appellant, it is reasonable to conclude that the roll coater of Wallick is
capable of applying water to the web crests in the same manner it applies the
resin solution. The Examiner’s reasonable conclusion shifts the burden to
Appellant to show that, in fact, the roll coater of Wallick is not capable of
applying water as claimed. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478-79, 44
USPQ2d 1432. Appellant provides no convincing evidence that there is no
such capability.
Our dissenting colleague states that in order for the roll coater of
Wallick to anticipate the water supply device of the present invention there
must be some evidence establishing that the consistency and flow
characteristics of the “suitable isocyanate resin” are the same as or
comparable to that of water. We do not agree that such evidence is required
here. Given the similarities between the roll coater 82 of Wallick and the
roll coater described by Appellant in the specification, there is enough
evidence to reasonably conclude that the roll coater of Wallick has the
capability of supplying water. We also note that Appellant has not even
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007