Appeal No. 1997-1291
Application 08/283,934
(column 18, lines 51-57). Ampulski does not teach the use of steam as an evaporator and
a carrier for the atomized debonder solution. Smith teaches the use of steam to impart
bulk to dried creped tissues. It is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious (1) to replace the heated transfer surface with a steam
atmosphere to achieve limited penetration of the softener into the tissue paper and save
the expense of the heated rollers and (2) to employ steam in conjunction with the softener
to spray the softener onto the tissue paper since Smith teaches that application of steam
to a tissue paper imparts an advantageous increase in the bulk of the tissue paper. We
disagree.
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has the burden under 35 U.S.C. §
103 of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Piasecki, 745 Fed.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In determining the propriety of the PTO case
for obviousness in the first instance, it is necessary to ascertain whether or not the
reference(s) teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant
art having the references before him to make the proposed substitution, combination or
modification. In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
On this record we find that the examiner has not provided sufficient evidence
to establish that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to use steam as an evaporator and as a means to transfer a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007