Appeal No. 2006-0440
Application No. 10/291,933
together seamlessly after application to the substrate.” This
difference notwithstanding, we find no reversible error in the
examiner’s determination (answer at 4-5) that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to modify Grimm’s method in
view of the teachings of Zimmer to arrive at a method
encompassed by appealed claim 1.
Specifically, Zimmer teaches a device for applying a
flowable material onto the surface of a substrate. (Column 1,
lines 7-12.) According to Zimmer, uniform distribution of a
working fluid over a relatively moving substrate is achievable
by means of an applicator body provided with a channel system
having a branched structure extending from an entrance port to a
multiplicity of exit ports disposed in a row transverse to the
direction of relative substrate motion, the branches of the
channel system becoming progressively more numerous and
correspondingly narrower from the entrance port to the exit
ports. (Column 1, line 59 to column 2, line 2; Figure 16.)
Given the collective teachings of the prior art, we share the
examiner’s view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found the requisite motivation, suggestion, or teaching in the
applied prior art references to modify Grimm’s method by using
Zimmer’s applicator in lieu of a sheet die in order to achieve
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007