Appeal No. 1999-0337
Application 08/323,839
Claim 5 is broader than claims 1 and 17 in that it
requires the step of independently adding chemicals and/or
fillers only to “at least one” of a plurality of divided stock
flows. Because Booth would have suggested the step of
independently adding chemicals to Beck’s inner flow, i.e., to
at least one of Beck’s stock flows, the examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in
claim 5 is well founded. The various hindsight arguments
advanced by the appellants against the proposed combination of
Beck and Booth are not persuasive with respect to claim 5
because they are not commensurate with the breadth of this
claim as compared with claims 1 and 17. The related argument
that Beck teaches away from the proposed combination because
it discloses an alternative separate stock delivery and
control system embodiment is also unpersuasive. The
appellants’ rationale here is that “one skilled in the art who
wanted to use a multi-chamber headbox in which different
stocks are delivered to the chambers would use separate stock
delivery and control systems” (main brief, page 14). Non-
obviousness, however, cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007