Appeal 2005-2349
Application 09/961,126
Now turning to the prior art rejections, the Examiner's rejected claims
10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wallick '391
or Wallick '458.3 The Examiner asserts that Wallick discloses an apparatus
capable of manufacturing a corrugated product with a corrugating device
capable of forming a plurality of flutes on a web medium. The Examiner
asserts that Wallick also discloses "a water supply device capable of
applying water to only the crests (spray 48 with the embodiment of the roller
coater in Figure 2b applying only to the crests.)" (Answer 5). The Examiner
further asserts that Wallick discloses a starch supply device capable of
applying starch only to the crest (glue station 42). The Examiner further
states "as to the amended limitations of a 'water' supply device and 'starch'
supply device, the spray 48 in the Wallick references is fully capable of
supplying water and the glue station 42 is also fully capable of applying
starch." (Answer 6).
In my opinion, the present record lacks sufficient evidence to establish
anticipation under § 102. Anticipation under § 102 requires that the
identical invention that is claimed was previously known to others and is
thus not new. Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation v. Genentec Inc.,
927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Titanium
Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780, 227 USPQ 773,
777-78 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is apparent from the Examiner's statement
appearing on page 6 of the Answer that the Examiner is utilizing the spray
3 In discussing this rejection, I will limit my discussion to Wallick '391.
-17-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007