Appeal No. 96-2630
Application No. 08/259,824
web produces internal bulking of the sort conceded to increase
the “Average Percent Void Area.” That the bulked web may also
undergo some minor amount of inelastic deformation resulting in
the sinusoidal web contour shown in Busker’s Figure 4 is of no
moment, particularly when considered in light of the fact that
the appellants’ internal bulking treatment also produces a
sinusoidal web contour as shown in Figure 3C of the instant
application.
The appellants’ additional contention that “[w]ithout the
use of distinct, individual bosses, the uniform debonding
resulting in wet-pressed tissue sheets having a high Average
Percent Void Area as claimed could not be achieved” (brief, page
6) is also unpersuasive. To begin with, the appealed claims do
not require the claimed tissue sheet to have any sort of uniform
debonding. Moreover, there is no evidence of record which
indicates that the ribbed roll treatment disclosed by Busker
would not produce uniform debonding and/or an Average Percent
Void Area as claimed. As for the “wet-pressed” recitations in
the appealed claims, it is well settled that while product claims
may include process steps to wholly or partially define the
claimed product, it is the patentability of the product claimed,
and not of the recited process steps, which must be determined.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007