Ex parte HONEGGER - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-0333                                                          
          Application 08/054,793                                                      


          adhesively joining the paper webs of the continuously moving                
          stack along equidistant junction lines perpendicular to the                 
          first direction of the stack by injecting a liquid binder into              
          said stack from at least one of the main surfaces of the stack              
          along said junction lines and wetting all layers of the stack               
          with the injected binder,                                                   
          bringing two additional webs together with the continuously                 
          moving stack such that they cover the main surfaces of the                  
          stack,                                                                      



          cutting the continuously moving stack midway between each pair              
          of said equidistant junction lines to form individual stacks,               
          and                                                                         
          folding each individual stack along said junction line.                     

                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Obergfell                       3,616,034        Oct. 26, 1971              
          McCain et al. (McCain)          3,966,185        Jun. 29, 1976              
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over                  
          McCain in view of Obergfell.                                                
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered all of the arguments                      
          advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with                       
          appellant that the aforementioned rejection is not well                     

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007