Appeal No. 96-0354 Page 8
Application No. 08/099,066
teachings of the applied prior art that would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to locate the water jet cutter at the forming roll
where the paper web and the inner and outer fabrics together
wrap the forming roll in a sandwich structure. Instead, it
appears to us that the examiner relied on impermissible
hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination. In our
view, the teachings of Peterson and Miyamoto relied upon by
the examiner as suggesting locating the water jet cutter at
the forming roll are only sufficient when combined with
impermissible hindsight.
Since all the limitations are not taught or suggested by
the applied prior art, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, and of dependent
claims 2 through 7 and 9 through 16. 7
the art.
7We have also reviewed the Heys reference additionally
applied in the rejection of dependent claims 6, 7, 15 and 16
but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies
of Peterson and Miyamoto discussed above regarding claims 1
and 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007