Appeal No. 95-2944
Application No. 07/986,771
appreciate that Figure 9 shows a transverse view of patentee’s
radiation tunnel (e.g., see lines 12-13 in column 9) whereby the
thread path 6 and the elongate axis of cover 10 are displayed in
Figure 9 as perpendicular to the plane of the paper.
The examiner’s obviousness conclusion is also fatally
premised upon his erroneous belief that, “[a]s illustrated in
Figure 1 [of Stelling], the blast tube BT is orientated parallel
to the web travel direction” (Answer, page 7). Actually,
patentee’s blast tubes are orientated perpendicular, not
parallel, to the web travel direction as clearly shown by a
comparison of Figures 1 and 2 and expressly disclosed in claim 1
of the patent which recites “a blast tube assembly having an air
inlet end and extending into said tunnel in a direction which is
generally transverse to said web” (emphasis added).
Particularly under the circumstances discussed above, it is
clear to us that the appellants’ claim feature under
consideration would not have been suggested by the applied prior
art generally including the Fleissner and Stelling references
specifically. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 13 through 20 as being unpatentable
over Baxter in view of Fleissner and Stelling or his
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007