Appeal No. 95-4375
Application 08/153,491
or die mechanisms 13, 14) having surfaces corresponding to the
intended shape of the final product to impart a shape to the
paper webs 5 and 7. A device of this sort is simply not present
in the Parker references, where, in contrast, the folding of the
paper strip is accomplished solely by restricting the forward
advancement of the strips in the discharge chute. The examiner
seemingly ignores these differences in structure and operation
between the primary references and Pollux Trust which point away
from their combination by shifting to a higher level of
commonality, namely, that the ultimate goals of each are to
deform paper. These broadly defined ultimate goals do not
justify the examiner’s proposed modification of the primary
references. In this regard, it is not at all clear that the
moistening devices of Pollux Trust, which are for the purpose of
“mak[ing] the subsequent embossing durable” (Pollux Trust, page
3, line 65; emphasis added) would be of any benefit whatsoever in
the paper forming apparatus and method of the Parker references.
In our view, the only suggestion for combining the disparate
teachings of the Parker references and Pollux Trust in the manner
proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge derived
from appellant’s own disclosure. The use of such hindsight
knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007