Appeal No. 1999-0337
Application 08/323,839
taught by Booth” (answer, page 4). 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 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 17 require means for independently adding
chemicals and/or fillers to “each” of a plurality of stock
flows. Since Booth would have suggested adding chemicals only
to Beck’s inner or middle stock flow, the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
recited in claims 1 and 17 is unsound.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007