Appeal No. 1998-1020 Page 6
Application No. 08/381,423
mode, in view of the teachings of Huck and Okamura (answer,
page 5). The appellants do not challenge the examiner's
position with regard to the use of dampening water.
The examiner also implicitly concedes that Barkley lacks
a means or step for applying counter pressure to the other
side of the paper web at a second location along the paper web
traveling direction, as required by the claims on appeal, but
takes the position that the use of a counter pressure cylinder
in Barkley for producing a wavy surface on the web would have
been obvious "in view of the teachings and for the reasons as
disclosed by each of" Huck, Yamashita and Miyoshi (answer,
page 5). For the following reasons, we cannot agree.
Miyoshi discloses a paper sheet feeding device comprising
top and bottom conveyor rollers (9, 10) disposed on opposite
sides of the paper sheet feeding path which, as shown in
Figure 4, are offset relative to each other in a direction
transverse to the direction of sheet travel and rotatably
mounted on two shafts (18, 19) spaced a distance less than the
sum of the radii of the rollers (9, 10) such that the paper
sheet passing therebetween assumes a wavy pattern. As
explained in column 4, lines 35-42, the conveyor rollers (9,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007