Appeal 2006-1543
Application 10/239,769
have a lower than claimed solids content (Answer 7). The Examiner
provides no reasonable evidentiary basis for the finding that “it would have
been apparent to the skilled artisan that it would have been capable of drying
and smoothing a release (or other) coating with a higher solids content” (id.).
Appellants’ Specification, on the other hand, indicates that conventional
coatings in the art have solids content lower than 80% and problems were
encountered with high-solids coatings (Specification 1:19 to 2:5). In light of
the evidence as a whole, we cannot say that the Examiner has supported the
finding by a preponderance of the evidence as required.
Furthermore, the sentence in the abstract of Soremark the Examiner
relies upon for a teaching of applying a release composition to a drying roll
does not seem to mean what the Examiner desires it to mean. Soremark
describes an improvement to methods of applying a coating to a paper web
wherein the coating is applied using a conventional roll applicator
(Soremark, col. 1, ll. 14-16). The improvement involves including an
additive comprising a release composition in the coating composition
(Soremark, col. 2, ll. 62-64). This coating additive reduces the tendency of
the coating mixture to stick to the rolls and thereby helps to maintain cleaner
rolls (Soremark, col. 2, ll. 29-31). The improved composition and method
allows rapid and complete separation of the wet, tacky, coated web of paper
product from the coating, drying, or processing surfaces of the machine
(Soremark, col. 1, ll. 8-11). While in a vacuum the sentence in the abstract
might seem to teach applying the release composition directly to a drying
roll for transfer to the web, when the sentence is read in the context of the
entire document it becomes clear that this is not what is being taught by the
reference. Therefore, the combination of art relied upon by the Examiner
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007