Appeal 2007-0512
Application 10/310,744
21. The Examiner's response to that argument was that "[t]he provision of
the softer rubber material between the harder rubber components on wither
[sic: either] side of the pressing roller mechanism in Hubbard et al was
clearly able to form a continuous width seam along the roof membrane as
the soft component to the roller allowed one to more easily apply pressure in
those regions where the fasteners protruded from the surface by virtue of the
soft elastic material in the central region of the roller." (Answer at 9.)
22. Appellants maintain their position in the Reply Brief, urging that
"[w]hat is different about the present invention is that the weld wheel is
constructed to form a weld across its entire width. The weld wheel is
structurally different than that found in Hubbard." (Reply Br. at 4.)
23. Appellants cite no authority, whether testimony by a knowledgeable
person, technical reviews, or other technical publications, in support of their
arguments.
Rejections for lack of written description
24. The Examiner rejects claims 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 43, and 44 as
lacking an adequate written description in the specification as filed for the
term "channel." (Final Rejection mailed 13 June 2005 ("Final Rejection")
at 2–4; and Examiner's Answer mailed 6 July 2005 ("Answer") at 3-5.)
25. With regard to claims 27, 33, and 43, the Examiner finds that there is
no basis in the originally filed specification for the limitation "said nozzle
having at least two channels . . ." (emphasis added.) (Answer at 3-4.)
26. More particularly, the Examiner finds, "[o]ne skilled in the art would
have recognized that that nozzle taught in the disclosure has a single channel
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013