combination of steel/rubber or rubber/rubber matched embossing
rolls is within the scope of this invention" (column 2, lines
5 through 7), we agree with the appellant that Grupe alone or
in any combination with Schulz `983 and either Schulz `671 or
Thomas would not have suggested the rigid-resilient adhering
nip set forth in claims 1 and 15. It is only through an
impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
invention that the examiner has reached the opposite
conclusion.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 15, or of claims 2 through
7 and 16 through 21 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Schulz `671 or Thomas in view of Schulz `983
and Grupe.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007