Appeal 2006-1543
Application 10/239,769
embodiment, or to the surface of the belt that next meets the surface of the
web.” (original Specification 8:22-24). Note that page 8 of the original
Specification does not indicate that the referenced belt can be the dryer belt,
rather, to one of ordinary skill in the art what is referenced is a conventional
coating transfer belt. Note the further disclosure on page 13 of the original
Specification that “[t]he treatment agent can be applied to the web surface in
plural ways. . . . . The charged particles of the powder may be applied
directly to the web surface or, e.g., via a transfer roll or belt by charging the
belt, then adhering the powder to this transfer means and finally transferring
the powder to the web surface by way of compressing the transfer means
against the web.” (original Specification 13:21-31). Again, there is no
mention of using the dryer belt as the transfer means.
Given the lack of disclosure in the original Specification identifying
the dryer belt as a usable transfer means and the inconsistency between the
interpretation of original claim 8 as proposed by Appellants with the scope
of original claim 1, the Examiner’s finding that the original Specification
would not convey possession to the skilled artisan of the now recited,
depicted, and claimed subject matter is reasonable.
We find that the Examiner has established that the objected to
language added by the Amendment entered July 23, 2004 and the newly
illustrated subject matter of new Figure 2 are impermissible new matter. We
further find that the Examiner has established that claims 15, 21, 30-34, 36,
and 37 violate the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
Appellants have not convinced us of a reversible error on the part of the
Examiner.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007