Appeal 2006-1543
Application 10/239,769
interpretation, the reference to “a treatment agent” in claim 8 is a reference
to the treatment agent recited in claim 1. But if one interprets original claim
8 in this manner, claim 8 will not further limit original claim 1 and thus
claim 8 becomes improperly dependent on claim 1 in contravention of
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4. This is because original claim 1 is limited to a method
comprising “passing the base web (10) to at least one applicator apparatus,
wherein to the surface of the web is applied in at least one step at least one
kind of a treatment agent” wherein “after the application of said treatment
agent, the web (10) is passed via a belt dryer comprising at least one
heatable belt (2) in such a manner that the heatable belt comes to face the
treated surface of the web (10).” (emphasis added). Claim 1 is limited to
pretreatment of the web surface with the treatment agent before passing the
treated web to the belt dryer in accordance with the embodiment of Figure 1,
the one and only original drawing figure.
Figure 1 with labels added thereto is reproduced below:
Figure 1 – A diagrammic view of an embodiment of the invention
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007