Appeal No. 1999-2163
Application 08/950,524
coating of adhesive applied to one surface of the sheet (id.).
The examiner applies Pulskamp as evidence that it was
conventional in this art to insert separating sheets into
conveyed overlapping sheets from a second sheet feeder, without
disrupting the flow of the overlapped sheet stream (Answer, page
4). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify the process and apparatus of Ritter
by adding the means for inserting the separating sheets from a
second sheet feeder into the overlapped sheets as taught by
Pulskamp (id.). The examiner recognizes that the combination of
Ritter and Pulskamp does not teach “separating the overlapped
sheets prior to coating and then overlapping again after
coating.” Id. However, it is the “examiner’s position” that one
of ordinary skill in the art “would perform the steps of
overlapping and coating in a sequence consistent with the desired
product and would transport the sheets to the coater in any
desired fashion.” Id.
As correctly argued by appellants, the proposed combination
of Ritter and Pulskamp by the examiner would still not result in
the claimed invention (Brief, page 5). Ritter teaches a sheet
inserting station 5 downstream of all coating operations (see
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007