Appeal No. 2006-1557 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/220,514
In the case before us, the examiner has determined that
Elger discloses, expressly or inherently, a coating process and
apparatus that meets every limitation of the invention set forth
in the appealed claims. We agree for reasons set forth in the
final rejection, the answer and below.
Claims 2-16, 19, 23 and 24
Appellants argue these claims together (brief, page 4).
Thus, we select independent claim 19 as the representative claim
on which we shall decide this appeal as to this claim grouping.
Appellants maintain that Elger divides or cuts the web at
the output of a paper machine; that is, “subsequent to complete
processing of the web 2, and this fact is repeated throughout
Elger’s specification” (brief, page 4), as opposed to in the
paper machine itself, as claimed (brief, page 5).2
2 Arguments not made in the briefs are not considered. See 37 CFR
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007