Ex Parte Scherb et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2005-0863                                                                 Page 2                
              Application No. 09/769,462                                                                                 



                                                    BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The appellants' invention relates to a machine for producing a tissue web having                    
              a forming area including at least one rotating continuous dewatering wire.  The                            
              appellants' invention further relates to a process for producing a tissue web with the                     
              tissue machine (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the               
              appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                                         


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                     
              appealed claims are:                                                                                       
              Bluhm et al. (Bluhm)                      5,556,511                    Sep. 17, 1996                       
              Schiel                                    6,004,429                    Dec. 21, 1999                       
              Kamps et al. (Kamps)               WO 96/35018                         Nov. 7, 1996                        


                     Claims 1 to 10 and 13 to 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                           
              unpatentable over Kamps in view of Schiel or Bluhm.                                                        


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                       
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                        
              (mailed August 10, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                           
              rejection, and to the brief (filed May 17, 2004) and reply brief (filed October 12, 2004) for              
              the appellants' arguments thereagainst.                                                                    







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007