Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
alleged that the device of Wallick does not have the capability of supplying
water.
We find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation by Wallick ‘391 and ‘458 with respect to the subject matter of
claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 that has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellant.
The Examiner further rejected claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wallick ‘391 or ‘458 in view of Westphal and/or Miller.
Claim 35 further requires that the water supply device comprise a sprayer.
The Examiner notes that Wallick describes the use of a sprayer, but
acknowledges that it is unclear whether the sprayer of Wallick coats only the
crests of the web. Therefore the Examiner turns to Westphal and Miller to
show sprayers able to apply coatings only to the crests or flutes of a
corrugated surface. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use a sprayer to apply the resin solution of Wallick only to the
crests as such sprayers were well known and would be equivalent to the roll
coater of Wallick.
Appellant argues that Westphal is not related to sprayers used in
applying water to corrugated board and, therefore, does not add anything to
the obviousness equation (Br. 10 and 11). In reference to Miller, Appellant
argues that a spray device will apply an even coating to the full surface in
front of the spray head and, furthermore, that Appellant agrees that the spray
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007