Appeal No. 1999-0695 Page 6
Application No. 08/427,018
As recognized by the examiner, the AAPA does not disclose a web-up device after and
adjacent the first print unit comprising a splicing mechanism and a second web roll supplying a
second web of material, as required by claim 4. The examiner, however, takes the position
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to provide the AAPA with the web-up device of Benson after the print unit because
Benson recognizes that web breaks occur in continuous web feeding operations and because
Benson teaches that the claimed web-up device is well-known in the art as a rethread means to
correct the situation of a web break (answer, page 4).
In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide
a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,
973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellants' disclosure. See, e.g., Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988).
While we agree with the examiner that Benson does disclose a splicing mechanism for
assisting in rethreading a continuous web through a continuous web-feeding apparatus after the
occurrence of a production fault and appreciate that the AAPA is also a continuous web-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007