Appeal No. 2000-2014
Application No. 08/713,672
appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
As noted by both the examiner and appellants, the
teachings of LePisto, Heikkilä and Karlsson are substantially
similar. All three references disclose an apparatus for
drying a moving web, the apparatus comprising an infrared
radiant dryer followed by an airborne web dryer and including
a conveyor for conveying the web through the two dryers. In
the apparatus of each of these references, cooling air used to
cool the radiation elements in the radiant dryer is circulated
to the airborne dryer and directed onto the web therein to
help further dry the web which has already passed through and
been dried by the radiant dryer. In addition to the cooling
air from the radiant dryer, which cooling air has been heated
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007