Appeal No. 96-2630
Application No. 08/259,824
embossing design disclosed by either Burgess or Benz (see pages 3
through 5 in the answer).
The appellants’ argument that “[t]here is no suggestion in
any of the references to utilize the bosses of Burgess et al. or
Benz in the method of Busker to produce a tissue sheet as
claimed” (brief, page 6) is well taken. The Busker rolls produce
a wave-stretch texturing wherein the web tends to return
elastically toward its original plane, while the Burgess and Benz
rolls produce an embossed texturing wherein the web retains the
embossed configuration. These are fundamentally different
treatments which result in fundamentally different tissue
structures. The only suggestion for combining such disparate
teachings in the manner proposed by the examiner stems from
hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellants’
own disclosure.
Be this as it may, the teachings of Busker alone are
sufficient to establish that the subject matter recited in
representative claims 23 and 26 would have been obvious within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
More particularly, the excerpts from the Busker disclosure
reproduced above indicate that various parameters of the Busker
tissue manufacturing process, such as the spacing between the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007