Appeal No. 96-0333
Application 08/054,793
final product, as claimed" (brief, page 5) and that
"[c]learly, Obergfell does not teach any practical technique
for wetting multiple sheets of anything in one injection"
(brief, page 6).
In Obergfell’s discussion of the use of more than two
workpieces adjacent to each other, he discloses controlling
the nature of the liquid adhesive and the adhesive ejection
parameters such that the spreading of the adhesive occurs at a
selected interface (col. 4, lines 6-13). The examiner has not
pointed out, and we do not find, any teaching or suggestion in
the reference that his method would be effective for adhering
workpieces together at each of multiple interfaces, such as
the interfaces between the webs in a stack of webs, along the
path of travel of the ejected adhesive. The motivation relied
upon by the examiner for using Obergfell’s adhesive injection
technique in the McCain method comes solely from appellant’s
specification. Thus, the examiner used impermissible
hindsight when rejecting the claims. See W.L. Gore &
Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220
USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007