Appeal 2006-1543
Application 10/239,769
does not teach applying a treatment agent to a heated drying roll as found by
the Examiner and without this teaching it cannot be said that the Examiner
has identified a suggestion to apply a treatment agent to the heated dryer belt
of Lehtinen.
Because the references do not teach or suggest either the high-solids
content or the application of a treatment agent to a heated dryer belt required
by the claims, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we sustain the rejection of claims 15, 21, 30-34, 36, and
37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. We further reject claims 16-20 on the same
grounds. We also sustain the objection to the Specification under 35 U.S.C.
§ 132. We, however, do not sustain the rejection of claims 15-20 and 30-32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007