Appeal No. 98-1184
Application 08/593,670
of a web) can be effected by projecting a stream of gaseous
fluid on the web in the direction of travel. These teachings
would have suggested modifying Dischler's method by projecting
the stream of gaseous fluid against the web in the direction
of web travel in order to realize Dischler's appreciation of
varying the effect of the treatment on the web.
In light of the foregoing, the lack of suggestion or
motivation arguments advanced by the appellant with regard to
the
examiner's proposed combination of Dischler and Sack are not
persuasive. Since these references support a conclusion that
the differences between the subject matter recited in claims 1
and 7 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these
claims and of claims 3 through 6 and 8 which stand or fall
therewith.
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2. It is not apparent, nor has
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007