Appeal No. 1998-3018
Application 08/457,328
Stotz discloses an “installation for charging or loading
a multi-ply headbox for a papermaking machine” (column 1,
lines 7 and 8). The installation includes two stock
suspension infeed systems I and II for charging the headbox 1
with stock suspensions A and B having different material
properties and two water containers 2a and 2b for respectively
supplying filtered water to the stock suspensions A and B.
In combining Beck, Booth and Stotz to reject claims 1, 11
and 17, the examiner has concluded that
it would have been obvious to modify Beck, with
Booth and Stotz in order to provide diverse
treatments for the different plies of stock, as
taught by Booth, and to regulate the diluting flows
into each of the stock flows, as taught by Stotz.
Although Stotz does not specifically teach that each
of the diluting flows are controlled independently,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to do so considering the teaching of
Booth to independently control the chemical flows
[answer, pages 4 and 5].
This proposed modification of Beck pertains to the headbox
embodiment having the common stock delivery and control
system. The teachings of Booth relied upon by the
examiner to support the foregoing conclusion of obviousness
are clearly limited to the preparation and treatment of the
inner or filler plies of a paper board product. While these
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007