Appeal No. 2006-0440
Application No. 10/291,933
With respect to the appellants’ argument that Zimmer does
not teach orienting the applicator at an angle relative to the
substrate (substitute appeal brief at 6), no such requirement is
recited in appealed claim 1. To the extent that such an
argument is appropriate for appealed claim 17, we find it
unpersuasive for the reasons stated in the answer at 8-9.
Furthermore, in discussing the coating of a flat substrate,
Zimmer teaches that the applicator can be mounted “somewhat
inclinedly.” (Column 6, lines 1-4.)
With respect to appealed claim 18, the appellants argue
(substitute appeal brief at 7):
While Zimmer et al. discloses the branched
division of a flowable material, the branched division
does not provide plural outlet streams applied to a
substrate. Rather, the plural streams from the
branches are combined within the applicator itself
prior to discharge therefrom.
The problem with the appellants’ argument is that the
appealed claims are significantly broader in scope than what the
appellants would have us believe. As discussed above, the
appealed claims do not recite any limitation with respect to the
outlet streams being applied to the substrate individually and
separately. Nor do they recite any requirement that the outlet
streams must be spaced apart immediately prior to their
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007