Appeal No. 2000-2013
Application No. 08/766,544
embodiment where solvent is used to soften the tip portion of the
projections, not where heat is used (id.). From these findings,
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
moved a web backing into a gap without any supports for the
projections while using a heated roll to reshape the projections
“since Hamano suggests that reshaping the projections using solvent
softening or heating are equivalent softening alternatives.”
Answer, page 5. The examiner also concludes that it would have
been obvious to omit the solvent softening step and provide a heat
softening step “for the economic and environmental benefit of
eliminating solvent emissions into the atmosphere.” Id.
As correctly argued by appellants (Brief, page 11; Reply
Brief, page 4), Hamano does not teach that the chemical treatment
is equivalent to the heat softening/pressure embodiment. Hamano
discusses and claims each embodiment separately (see col. 1, ll.
23-31; col. 2, ll. 17-34; and claims 1 and 3). Hamano teaches that
the loops enter the solvent bath upside down, exposing only the
summits of the loops to the solvent (col. 2, ll. 24-27 and Figure
8). Thus the chemical treatment embodiment of Hamano, while
accomplishing the same function as the heat treatment embodiment,
has not been disclosed or suggested as an equivalent process. On
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007