Appeal 2007-2030
Application 10/482,842
Schlueter discloses a variety of adhesives for bonding mating elements of
two ends of a flexible substrate to fabricate an endless flexible seamed
electrostatographic belt (Findings of Fact 8-9). It does not, however, teach
applying two different glues with the respective properties recited in the plain
language of independent claim 10 (Finding of Fact 10). In light of the above
construction of “first glue” and “second glue,” the Examiner has provided no
reference showing the missing limitations, nor has he made a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 1 over Erkkila in view of Schlueter. With regard to
remaining rejected dependent claims 2-6, 11-13, and 15-17, we also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims because these claim rejections rely upon the
underlying rejection of independent claim 1. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076,
5 USQP2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is nonobvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is nonobvious).
B. Rejection of claims 9-10 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Erkkila in view of Hings.
As discussed in reference to the preceding rejection, Erkkila fails to describe
“applying a strand of a first glue to at least a part of the width of the end joint
surface of one of the cylindrical sleeves, the first glue having properties that cause
fixing of the end joint surfaces of the sleeves within a first time period” (Finding of
Fact 6). Erkkila also lacks any teaching of “a first glue nozzle for providing a
strand of a first glue” or “a second glue nozzle for providing a strand of a second
glue” (Finding of Fact 7).
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013