Appeal 2007-2030
Application 10/482,842
ANALYSIS
We first construe the meaning of the phrases “first glue” and “second glue”
as used by the Appellants in the claims. The Examiner concludes that “the features
upon which the appellant relies (i.e., using different first and second glues in an
end to end joining of sleeves) are not recited in the rejected claim(s)” (Answer 6).
In particular, the Examiner found that:
The process steps of applying strands of glue to at least
part of the width of the end joint surfaces of the
respective sleeves is fully disclosed by Erkkila (column
4, lines 30+) in a “conventional” manner. The only
claimed limitations regarding the first and second glue
are 1) the first glue, by itself, causes fixing within a first
time period and 2) the second glue causes wetting of the
sleeve material in the joint surface and its immediate
vicinity.
The step of “allowing the second glue strand to set by
itself within a second time period, longer than the first
time period” only dictates a waiting period in the
operation longer than the first time period.
Thus the two glue strands could reasonably be held to be
comprised of the same glue composition however are
produced from a different source; i.e. separate bottles,
etc.
(Answer 6-7) (emphasis in original).
We disagree. The plain language of independent claims 10 and 18 indicates
that the first glue has different physical properties from the second glue. This is
consistent with the Specification which provides an example of different types of
glue for the first glue (e.g. a melt glue) and the second glue (e.g. a dispersion glue
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013