Ex Parte Nissinen et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2006-1543                                                                              
                Application 10/239,769                                                                        

                16 of the Specification disclose the use of a film of polytetrafluoroethylene                 
                (PTFE) between the coated surface of the paper web and the “pressing steel                    
                platen” and that nowhere in the Specification is there any disclosure that the                
                claimed method includes a step of spraying PTFE onto the coated paper web                     
                or onto the belt (Reply Br. 2).                                                               
                      We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive.  We agree that the                      
                original Specification does not seem to disclose spraying PTFE onto the                       
                paper web or onto the belt, but this fact is not relevant to the issue at hand.               
                What is more relevant is that the original Specification “urges the use of                    
                suitable covering [of PTFE] . . . on the face of the steel belt of the belt dryer             
                facing the web surface.”  (original Specification 10:16-19).  The language of                 
                the original Specification parallels the language of original claim 8 in that                 
                the PTFE “is applied to the surface of the belt of the belt dryer facing the                  
                web” whereas, in the embodiment of Figure 2, the treatment agent is applied                   
                to the surface of the belt not facing the web.  This fact along with the fact                 
                that claim 8 recites “a treatment agent” rather than “said treatment agent”                   
                and that claim 1 uses the terminology “said treatment agent” when referring                   
                to the earlier recited treatment agent (web coating of claim 1) provides                      
                further evidence that original claim 8 is referring to a different agent.                     
                      With regard to claim 7, it is reasonable to interpret this claim as                     
                referring to belt or roll transfer means located upstream of the dryer belt.                  
                This reading of the claim is in conformance with the disclosure that “[a]n                    
                applicator apparatus is located in front of the belt dryer, upstream thereof in               
                the travel direction of the web” as recited in the original Specification                     
                (original Specification 7:1-2) and the disclosure that “[t]he treatment agent                 
                may be applied directly to the web surface, as is the case in the exemplifying                

                                                      8                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007