Appeal No. 1997-2065
Application No. 08/441,948
As evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner relies on the combined teachings of either Friedrich
or Ishiyama and Watanabe and Casey. The examiner states
(Answer, pages 3 and 4) that:
[Ishiyama] show manufacture of non-curl paper.
[Watanabe] show manufacture of non-curl paper
on a twin wire machine which allows control of
the two surfaces of the paper to eliminate curl.
Casey on pages 1039-1043 shows that twin wire
formers are conventional in the art and have a
well known advantage in obtaining uniformity
and absence of two sidedness in paper formed
thereon. In particular, Bel Bae II (Beloit), a
conventional twin wire former has the ability
to change fiber orientation as reflected by MD:CD
tensile strength ratios by changing the stock
jet:wire velocity ratio. It is also noted that
this is the type of twin wire former shown in
Fig. 6(d) of the present specification. Casey
teaches that in addition to the drying conditions
of each side of the paper, fiber orientation is
an important factor in curl control. Casey states
that curl is related to the degree of crossing
of the fibers or squareness of the sheet.
The orientation is controlled by stock jet:wire
velocity ratio. Since the primary references
objective is to produce a non-curl paper,
it would have been obvious to produce their paper
by a twin wire machine in view of the above
mentioned teachings of [Watanabe] and Casey.
Nowhere does the examiner, however, provide any evidence
regarding an electrophotographic transfer paper having the
claimed shrinkage of “no more than 0.45%” in a crossing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007