Appeal No. 1997-0347
Application 08/193,654
suggests that a pulling force is a function of such a dancer
roll arrangement, there is no logical basis for the examiner
to argue that "a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have been
motivated to vary the pulling force through routine
experimenta- tion to see if performance could be improved
further" [emphasis added]. See the Answer at page 5.
Moreover, even assuming for purposes of argument that based on
Asghar's teaching that second driving means 44R cooperates
with Asghar's first driving means 42R for rapid web take up
(see Asghar at column 5, lines 62-64), a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated and led to optimize
Harvey's spring-biased lever arm dancer roll 153, it is not
apparent to us how such optimization and modifi- cation would
lead to a dancer roll assembly necessarily providing a second
pulling force of at least 20% of the total pulling force on
the web.
In short, we agree with appellants that the combined
teachings of Harvey and Asghar do not provide a suggestion to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dancer
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007