Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
The Examiner further rejected claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Swift in view of Wallick ‘391 or
‘458. Appellant argues that Swift is directed to applying sodium silicate, not
water, to the corrugated board (Br. 13). The Examiner finds that the supply
device of Swift is capable of applying water as claimed. Just as in the case
of Wallick, this determination is reasonable in light of the evidence. The
structure of the apparatus appears to be the same or substantially the same as
that required by claim 10.
Appellant further argues that the sodium silicate is being applied to
the side of the web opposite the side of the adhesive (Br. 13). We do not
agree. Figure 1 shows a spray device 6 that applies material to one side of
the web prior to a set of rollers 29, 30 that apply adhesive to the same side of
the web.
Appellant also argues that Swift does not limit the application of the
sodium silicate to the tips of the flutes. The Examiner acknowledges this.
The Examiner applies the Wallick references with regard to this limitation.
Therefore this argument does not point to a reversible error on the part of the
Examiner.
Appellant also repeats the argument that the references do not address
the problem solved by Appellant. As we stated above, the references need
not solve the same problem as solved by Appellant. There simply has to be
a reason, suggestion, or motivation of some kind to make the combination
called for by the claim. Here, there is a reason to use an application device
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007