Appeal No. 97-3065 Page 10
Application No. 08/452,747
[c]laims 68, 70, 71, 73-76, 79, 83, and 96-98 differ from
Beaudoin et al in that the claims set forth the use of
two rotary transport devices in order to convey the
elastic web. Beaudoin et al teach the conveyance of an
elastic web via two rotary transport devices, one of
which comprising the limitations of the rotary transport
device as set forth in claim 68.
The examiner then concluded (answer, page 5) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to replace the vacuum drum with another transport
device (125) as taught by Beaudoin et al, in order to
engage the elastic web on both sides to ensure that the
web width tension is maintained as it travels from one
roller to another.
The appellants argue (brief, pages 7-9) that Beaudoin
does not teach or suggest the claimed invention and that the
examiner has used impermissible hindsight to derive the
claimed invention. We agree. We see no motivation in the
applied prior art of why one skilled in the art would have
modified the device of Beaudoin to make the modifications
necessary to arrive at the claimed invention. There is no
need for the vacuum drum 20 of Beaudoin to have thereon a
means for stretching the segments 14 as in his rotor 125 since
the segments on vacuum drum 20 are maintained in an
unstretched state. Thus, the examiner has failed to meet the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007