Appeal No. 1998-0837
Application No. 08/516,752
brief (Paper No. 10, filed September 18, 1997) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of appellants'
claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
At the outset, we particularly note that independent
claims 1 and 10 are drawn to a paper machine and a method of
reducing heat loss in a paper machine.
Claims 1 and 10 recite,
1. In a paper machine having a dryer section and a
calender section for a paper sheet to pass
therebetween during manufacture, a calender hood
comprising a substantially air impervious barrier
located near the paper sheet, continuously and
uninterruptedly extending from the dryer section to
the calender section and containing at least a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007