Appeal No. 96-0354 Page 7
Application No. 08/099,066
improvement thereover. Thus to use a thin jet of water
instead of the solution taught by Peterson would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, and to use such jet cutters on the forming roll
location would have been prima facie obvious, as this is
where impermeable bands 30 are used, and especially since
Miyamoto teaches the use of a water jet nozzle 10 on a
roll to trim paper edges. Miyamoto is seen to provide
motivation to use known water trim nozzles against a
roll.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6-10) that the subject
matter of claims 1 and 8 would not have been suggested by the
teachings of Peterson and Miyamoto. We agree for the reasons
set forth below.
We agree with the examiner that there is sufficient
motivation in the combined teachings of Peterson and Miyamoto 5
to have suggested providing a twin wire former with a
downstream water jet cutter to trim the edges of the paper
web. However, we see no teaching or motivation in the6
5The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
6This only results in a twin wire former that the
appellants have admitted (specification, pp. 1-2) is known in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007