Ex Parte Nissinen et al - Page 10

                Appeal 2006-1543                                                                              
                Application 10/239,769                                                                        

                      The Examiner further rejects claims 21, 33, and 34 on the basis that                    
                “there is nothing that teaches, suggests, or infers that charged particles are                
                applied to the heated belt, nor electrostatic means relative to the heatable                  
                dryer belt per claims 21, 33-34.” (Answer 6).  Appellants argue that this                     
                allegation is without merit citing the original Specification at page 13, lines               
                21-30.  This argument is not persuasive, however, because the portion of the                  
                original Specification cited by Appellants merely discloses applying the                      
                treatment agent to the web surface “via a roll or belt by charging the belt,                  
                then adhering the powder to this transfer means.”  Nowhere does this portion                  
                of the original Specification mention using the dryer belt as the transfer                    
                means.  We cannot agree with Appellants that this portion of the original                     
                Specification would convey to the artisan that Appellants were in possession                  
                of the concept of using the dryer belt as the transfer means.                                 
                      There is some confusion on the record with regard to the rejection of                   
                claims 31 and 32.  In the final rejection, the Examiner rejected these claims                 
                on the additional basis that “[n]owhere is there a disclosure of applying anti-               
                stick material to a heatable belt of a dryer.”  (Answer 4).  Appellants found                 
                this to be less than clear, but argued that the language was supported (Br. 8).               
                The rejection reproduced in the Answer does not specifically reject claims                    
                31 and 32 on the additional basis articulated in the final rejection.  In the                 
                Response to Argument section of the Answer, the Examiner responds to                          
                Appellants’ argument by stating that “[t]he teachings are for a heated belt                   
                being run against a coating on a base web (as admitted by Applicants’ own                     
                arguments on top of page 9), not on ‘the surface of the base web.’” (Answer                   
                9-10).  Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has made a                      
                new ground of rejection which is untimely (Reply Br. 2-3).  Appellants,                       

                                                     10                                                       


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007