Appeal 2006-2824
Application 10/441,513
Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM all grounds of
rejection in this appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as
well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(b)
The Examiner finds that Grossmann discloses a press jacket for a shoe
press apparatus for drainage of water from a paper web, where the jacket
comprises an inner layer (20) of elastomer matrix material facing away from
the web and containing embedded reinforcement cords (16, 18), and an outer
layer (22) adjacent to the web (Answer 4). The Examiner finds that the
jacket is made by applying matrix material for the first inner layer (20) to the
rotating cylindrical molding body, with the second layer (22) poured on top
of the first layer before it hardens (id.). The Examiner further finds that
Grossmann teaches that the first material is supplied through a first casting
nozzle (40) through a first conduit (46) while the cylinder rotates, with the
outside layer (22) simultaneously formed through a second casting nozzle
(42) arranged a comparatively small distance from the first casting nozzle
(40) (Answer 4-5). The Examiner finds that Grossmann teaches that good
association is achieved between the layers by casting the second layer onto
the first layer before it hardens, and the action of the rotating cylinder and
nozzles results in spirally wound, overlapping polymeric materials (Answer
5). The Examiner determines that the method and apparatus described by
Grossmann “reads directly on” the claimed subject matter (id.).
Appellants argue that it is clear that the inside and outside layers
disclosed by Grossmann are formed of different materials, even though each
material includes polyurethane, while the claims in this rejection clearly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007