Ex Parte Takeuchi et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2006-2901                                                                                
                Application 10/245,088                                                                          

                Appellants’ invention is directed to a doctor blade in combination with                         
                a movable surface.   For example, doctor blades are used in combination                         
                with paper making machines to remove water from elastic belts employed in                       
                the machine.  According to Appellants, the provision of a doctor blade made                     
                with a resin impregnated fibrous laminate having a specified void content is                    
                advantageous.  In this, regard, such a doctor blade is reported by Appellants                   
                as being easily adaptable to a mating member contacting surface and allows                      
                for improved water removal capability, increased durability and reduces                         
                abrasive damage to the mating member while maintaining shape retention.                         
                See paragraph 0016, p 3-4 of Appellants’ Specification.  Claim 1 is                             
                illustrative and reproduced below:                                                              
                       1. In combination with a movable surface, a doctor blade for                             
                removing water from said movable surface, the doctor blade being disposed                       
                in sliding contact with said movable surface and comprising a fibrous                           
                laminate impregnated with resin, and having a void content between 50%                          
                and 80%.                                                                                        
                       The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show                         
                unpatentability:                                                                                
                Koase  (as translated)  JP 56-20697   Feb. 26, 1981                                             
                Carrier     US 6,643,890  Nov. 11, 2003                                                         
                       Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                          
                anticipated by Koase (JP 56-20697)1.  Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35                      
                U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koase in view of Carrier.                            



                                                                                                               
                1 Our references to Koase in this decision are to the English language                          
                translation, of record.                                                                         
                                                       2                                                        


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007