Appeal No. 1997-3816
Application No. 08/512,313
The examiner has grounded the rejection upon the second
sentence only. From our perspective, however, to look to the
second sentence without the first, as the examiner has done,
is to take it out of context. Our review of the entire
document failed to find another portion of the text that
supported the very broad interpretation of the teachings
espoused by the examiner in the rejection and, in particular,
we find the diagrammatic presentations provided in Figures 9
and 23 to be so lacking in detail and accompanying explanation
as to fall short of providing such support.
Furthermore, we point out that in Laapotti ’762, while
pick-up felt 20 carries the web through press nip N and
1
through press nip N , which is the first of the pair of
2
conventional press nips which the examiner proposes to replace
with a single extended press nip, it does not carry the web
through press nip N , the second of the two press nips that
3
the examiner would replace. The web is carried through press
nip N by a second pick-up
3
felt 50. This being the case, replacement of press nips N2
and N with a single extended press nip would necessitate the
3
elimination of pick-up felt 50, for the appellant’s claim 1
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007