COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Obviousness - Press for coating thin chipboards with a lamination.
The laminate is pressed against the chipboard by a belt which is tensioned
and is made to wrap partly around the foller of the press. A proposed
amendment to claim 1 was accepted by the applicant.
Final Action - Affirmed - modification accepted
********************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated January 22, 1976, on appli-
cation 158,764 (Class 154-29.00), and is entitled "Press for Coating of
Thin Chipboards With Lamination."
The application relates to a press for the coating of thin chipboards with
a laminated sheet or sheets comprising a roller into which a sheet laminate
and the thin chipboard run. The laminate is pressed against the chipboard
by a belt which is tensioned and is made to wrap partly about the roller.
Figure 1 of the application, shown below, is representative of that arrange-
ment.
(See formula I)
In the Final Action the examiner refused claims 1 to 13 as "lacking inventive
distinction" over the following references:
United States Patent
2,385,456 Sept. 25, 1945 Marcy
Canadian Patent
933,459 Sept. 11, 1973 Ettel
Additional References of Interest
Canadian Patent
791,679 Aug. 6, 1968 Roullard
United States Patent
3,307,993 Mar. 7, 1967 Gottwald et al
In that action the examiner had, inter alia, this to say:
...
The applied references teach a vulcanizing press and a chipboard
making press. They both are characterized by having a large heated
drum with an endless flexible pressure belt trained around a portion
of its circumference. The belt is trained around guide rollers which
serve to press the belt against the drum and to tension it. All the
essential features of applicant's apparatus can be found in the
applied patents. In fact, the apparatus specified in claims 1-13
fails to differ patentably from the apparatus specified in applicant's
Canadian patent No. 933,459.
Applicant, in his arguments, seems to rely on the intended use of
the apparatus to confer patentability on his claims. The examiner
agrees with the applicant that Marcy discloses a vulcanizing press
and that Canadian patent No. 933,459 a chipboard making apparatus.
However, every feature of applicant's apparatus, except for the
provision of a co-running belt consisting of a material exhibiting
poor adhesion qualities, can be found in the applied patents. The
provision of a co-running belt is an obvious way of preventing the lam-
inate sheet and the shipboard from sticking to the drum. Furthermore,
restrictions related to intended use or operational conditions such
as temperature and pressure fail to confer patentability on an
apparatus whose structural features can be found in the prior art.
Further to the arguments presented by applicant relating to the
Marcy patent and Canadian patent 933,459, in using Marcy's apparatus
the positioning of the layers, that is the thermoplastic next to
the drum as opposed to the chipboard next to the drum provides
obvious procedural advantages but has no bearing on the structure
of the apparatus. Similarly, even though Canadian patent 933,459
teaches the apparatus as a chipboard making apparatus, it is not
patentably different, as far as structural limitations are concerned,
from applicant's chipboard laminating apparatus.
...
In his response the applicant submitted new claims 1, 10 and 14 and made minor
amendments to the disclosure. He also stated (in part):
...
To elaborate on applicant's position with respect to Canadian
Patent 933,459 which teaches an apparatus for the making of chip-
boards, applicant wishes to note that the patent describes several
structural features not found in the present application. When
employing an apparatus for the making of chipboard a layer of wood
chips combined with binders is scattered on a band of steel
and therefore a scattering device as shown in the drawings
is required over the band immediately before the mouth of
the pressing gap. Such a scattering device prevents the in-
sertion of manufactured chipboards between the belt and
heated roller. Therefore, the apparatus of Canadian Patent
933,459 could nor be used for laminating a sheet of thermo-
plastic material on a manufactured chipboard.
Furthermore, the layer of wood chips is brought into contact
with the press roller. Such is not the situation with the appara-
tus as claimed in the present application which includes a
means for positioning a laminate sheet between the chipboard and
the heated roller. The purpose of the above-mentioned means is to
avoid contact between the wood material and the heated roller in
the manner as shown in the drawings.
...
One of the main aims of the present invention is to eliminate
steam problems and to avoid the formation of bubbles and blisters
in a laminated chipboard as previously discussed. Such a problem
does not exist when employing a pressing apparatus for the
manufacture of chipboards because the pressing forces are consider-
ably higher than those used when employing applicant's claimed
invention. When using the pressing apparatus of the reference
the unmanufactured chipboard is in direct contact with the roller
and is heated to temperatures above the boiling point of water.
Therefore the moisture in the unmanufactured chipboard vaporizes.
However, because the surface of the chipboard is not laminated,
the water vapor escapes from the surface of the chipboard after the
chipboard leaves the press. Therefore, there is a further inherent
difference between a press for the manufacturing of chipboard and
applicant's claimed invention in which a manufactured chipboard
does not contact the heated roller and in which the areas of
contact between a laminate sheet and the heated roller is such to
overcome the problem of bubbles and blisters forming in the
laminate sheet as discussed on page 5 of the response.
...
The same basic arguments apply to distinguish the present invention
over the apparatus taught in United States Patent 3,307,993.
The reference teaches a method and apparatus for the high speed
coating of paper with an extremely smooth surface. Referring to
the bottom of column 3, and the top of column 4, as well as the
drawings, the method is accomplished by forcing a coating against
the drum along a substantial portion of the drums surface for
a sufficient time to dry the surface of the coating. More
particularly taught in column 4, at line 52, the wrapping may be
up to 270ø around the drum. Furthermore, the dryer drum is
heated to temperatures as high as 325øF. as taught in column 3,
at lines 37 and 38. The apparatus taught in the reference could
not be used for the laminating of thin chipboards and does not
contain the inherent characteristics of a press for accomplishing
this purpose. One of the main aims of applicant's claimed invention
is to reduce the duration of contact between the heated surface
and the laminate sheet. Such would not be the case if employing
the apparatus as taught in the reference because the wrap around
region is much too lengthy and the time required for drying the
coating or duration of contact between the coating and the drum
is completely inconsistent with a press for coating chipboard
having the inherent characteristics as claimed by the applicant.
...
A Hearing on the merits of this application was set for November 2, 1977.
On reviewing this application prior to the Hearing, however, the Board
found that the most pertinent references was cited only as a reference of
interest. Moreover it was cited for the first time in the Final Action.
In this circumstance it was inappropriate for the Board to consider the
Final Action. Consequently in fairness to the applicant, and with the applic-
ant's approval, the Hearing was cancelled.
Messrs. Woodley and Johnson, the agents handling the application were, how-
ever, planning to visit the Office on other business and requested an inter-
view with the Board. This took place on November 2, 1977. One solution
to the problem was to return the application to the examiner for resumption
of prosecution, which solution was repugnant to the wishes of the applicant
for obvious reasons. Therefore, in order to expedite the prosecution,
the Board made a complete study of the prosecution. The Board decided that
claim 1, the only independent claim, was indeed too broad in scope in view
of the references, more particularly in view of the Gottwald patent, which
was cited as of interest only. That patent relates generally to a method
and apparatus for high speed coating of paper. A belt means is provided
for continuously maintaining the paper and the coating against a
dryer drum. That invention is illustrated by Figure 1, shown below, of the
Gottwald patent:
(See formula I)
With the valuable assistance of the examiner, a proposed new claim 1, which
in our view is allowable, was suggested and presented to the agents. T'h at
claim, with the amendment underlined, reads:
A press for coating chipboard with at least one thermo-
plastic laminate sheet, said press comprising a heated roller
over which said laminate sheet and said chipboard are run, a
guide roller, a pressure application roller positioned down-
stream of said guide roller, a flexible endless belt passing
around said guide roller and said pressure application roller
and means for positioning said laminate sheet between said
chipboard and said heated roller, said guide roller and said
pressure application roller being positioned to wrap said belt
around a minor part of said heated roller where said laminate
sheet and said chipboard pass between said belt and said heated
roller with the pressure application roller positioned at the
end of the wrap around region to complete lamination, said
heated roller surface being a good heat conductor for rapid
heat transfer and being heated to a temperature such that said
thermo-plastic laminate sheet becomes plastic in the wrap
around region, the limited extent of said wrap around region
preventing damage and blistering to the coated chipboard and
permitting take away of the coated chipboard from the heated
roller upon completion of lamination.
On March 21, 1978 the applicant accepted the amended claim and made the appro-
priate amendment. At the same time he also cancelled claims 12 to 14.
In the circumstances we find it unnecessary to comment further because the
amendment now overcomes the rejection in the Final Action. We recommend
that claims 1 to 11 be accepted.
J.F.Hughes
Assistant Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I have studied the prosecution of this application and I concur with the
recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board. Accordingly, the application is
returned to the examiner for resumption of prosecution.
Agent for Applicant
J.H.A. Gariepy D.S. Johnson
Commissioner of Patents 133 Richmond St. W.
Toronto 1, Ont.
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this l3th. day of April, 1978