Appeal No. 95-4113
Application No. 08/124,334
against a web edge at an acute angle to improve
sealing. [answer, p. 3]
Our review of McDowall and Pommer reveals that the teachings
therein would not have rendered the above-identified limitations
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time
of the appellant's invention. In that regard, we see no teaching
in Pommer that would have suggested modifying the angle of
McDowall's openings 54 to be an acute angle instead of the 90°
shown in Figure 2. Contrary to the examiner's assertions, we
find no teaching in Pommer that would suggest that the flames
projecting from holes 69 drilled in the beveled corner 68 of the
burner 65 improve sealing as to flames directed at a 90° angle to
the web. Thus, while Pommer discloses impinging a flame
downwardly against a web edge at an acute angle, Pommer does not
recognize any benefit therefrom. Accordingly, we see no
motivation in Pommer, or the other applied prior art, of why one
skilled in the art would have modified the device of McDowall to
have positioned the openings 54 at an acute angle so that the
flames would extend upwardly against or toward the drum and the
web. Thus, it appears to us that the examiner has engaged in a
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. This, of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007