Appeal No. 1998-3018
Application 08/457,328
teachings would have suggested providing Beck’s apparatus and
method with a means for and step of independently adding
chemicals to the stock flow entering the middle or inner
headbox chamber 14 to control the drainage characteristics of
Beck’s inner ply, they would not have suggested the provision
of a means for or step of independently adding chemicals to
the stock flows entering the outer stock receiving chambers 13
and 15 which form Beck’s surface or skin plies.
Claims 1 and 11 respectively require a means for and a
step of independently adding chemicals and/or fillers to
“each” of a plurality of divided stock flows. Since Booth
would have suggested adding chemicals only to Beck’s inner or
middle stock flow, the examiner’s conclusion that the combined
teachings of these references would have rendered obvious a
method or apparatus meeting these claim limitations is
unsound. Moreover, and as conceded by the examiner, Stotz
does not teach a diluting means or step as recited in claims
1, 11 and 17 for independently adjusting the consistency of at
least one of the divided stock flows with respect to the
consistency of other of the stock flows. Notwithstanding the
examiner’s determination to the contrary, this shortcoming in
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007