Appeal 2007-2201
Application 10/613,735
the rollers (Br. 10; Answer 17). Appellant also admits that the heat
exchanging rollers disclosed by Wedler allow the textile material to “pass”
the rollers (Br. 10; Answer 16). Therefore, we will limit our consideration
to the interpretation of “by.” We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
Specification contains no definition or enlightenment concerning the word
“by” (Answer 17). Giving the broadest and reasonable meaning to this word
in its ordinary and customary usage, we determine that “by” is construed as
“in the direction of” (id.).3 Accordingly, we determine that the contested
limitation should be construed as passing the textile substrate in the direction
of and in contact with the evaporator apparatus.
Applying the preceding legal principles to the Factual Findings in the
record of this appeal, and in view of our claim construction as discussed
above, we determine the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of Wedler, which prima facie case has not been
adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. As shown by Factual
Finding (1) and (2) listed above, we determine that Wedler discloses every
limitation as required by claim 26 on appeal, including passing the textile
substrate with remaining chemical mixture in the direction of and in contact
with the heated rollers (evaporators), even when the rollers rotate in
direction A (see Fig. 1; and col. 4, ll. 18-20). Accordingly, for the reasons
stated in the Answer and above, we affirm the rejection of claims 26-30 and
33 under § 102(b) over Wedler.
3 We also note that a synonym for “by” is “with,” contrary to Appellant’s
arguments (Br. 10). See the Evidence Appendix attached to the Brief, page
2 of the “Top Web Results for ‘with’”.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013