Appeal 2006-1543
Application 10/239,769
To be in conformance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4, original claim 8,
being dependent on original claim 1, must further limit original claim 1.
However, if interpreted as proposed by Appellants, original claim 8 would
be directed to applying the treatment agent referenced in original claim 1 to
the surface of belt 2 of the dryer instead of to the surface of the web and the
web would not be passed to the belt dryer “after the application of said
treatment agent … in such a manner that the heatable belt comes to face the
treated surface of the web” as required by original claim 1. Therefore, if
interpreted as suggested by Appellants, original claim 8 would be
improperly dependent on original claim 1.
As pointed out by the Examiner, there is a reasonable claim
interpretation that preserves original claim 8 as a properly dependent claim
(Answer 8-9). As explained by the Examiner, it is reasonable to interpret “a
treatment agent” as recited in original claim 8, as referring to the anti-stick
material applied to the dryer belt as discussed in the Specification at page
10, lines 13-23. That treatment agent (anti-stick material), according to the
Specification, is applied to prevent the earlier discussed treatment agent
(web coating) from adhering to the heated dryer belt. As so interpreted,
original claim 8 does not support the concept of applying the treatment agent
that coats the web (web coating) to the dryer belt as shown in newly added
Figure 2.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of original claim 8
is based on an incorrect reading of their original Specification. According to
Appellants, original claim 8 refers to the same “treatment agent” as that
referred to in claim 1 (Reply Br. 2). Appellants argue that page 10, lines 13-
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007