Appeal No. 1998-0837
Application No. 08/516,752
sheet, continuously and uninterruptedly extending from the
dryer section to the calender section and containing at least
a portion of the calender section" (claim 1) or the step of "
positioning a substantially air impervious barrier as a
calender hood near the paper sheet, continuously and
uninterruptedly extending from the dryer section to the
calender section and containing at least a portion of the
calender section" (claim 10). The dryer hood which extends up
to the calender stack in Munari and Verkasalo's insulating
elements are not suggestive of the use of a hood connecting
the dryer and calender sections as claimed in appellants'
claims 1 and 10 on appeal.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 10, or of claims 2, 4-7, 9,
11-12 and 14-16 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable
over applicants' admission of prior art or MacDonald in view
of Verkasalo and Munari.
CONCLUSION
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007