Appeal 2007-2201
Application 10/613,735
Appellant contends that the cylinders described in Wedler are heat
exchanging rollers that allow the textile material to “pass with and against”
the rollers while the heat exchanger of claim 26 is a fixed device that
operates as a heat plate to allow the textile material to “pass by and against”
the heat exchanger (Br. 10). Accordingly, Appellants contend that the
substrate of Wedler does not “go across” the rollers but rolls with the rollers
(id.).2
The Examiner contends that while the Specification describes the use
of “any suitable apparatus for evaporating the non-aqueous solvent,” a “heat
plate” is not specifically described or suggested (Answer 12). The Examiner
further contends that the description of a heat exchanger does not provide
support for the broader genus of a “heat plate,” since a “heat plate” is not
necessarily a heat exchanger (Answer 13).
The Examiner contends that the heated cylinders of Wedler “operate
as a heat plate” (Answer 15-16). The Examiner further contends that, giving
the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “by and
against” reads on the passing of the textile material through the rollers as
taught by Wedler (Answer 16-17).
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie lack of
written description, which prima facie case has not been adequately rebutted
2 Appellant only presents arguments for claim 26 on appeal in every ground
of rejection in this appeal (Br. 6 and 9). With regard to the rejections based
on § 103(a), Appellant merely repeats the argument that the claims are
patentable based on their dependency on claim 26 (e.g., Br. 17-18).
Therefore we limit our consideration in this appeal to claim 26, and adopt
the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the
rejections based on § 103(a) (Answer 7-11).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013