Appeal No. 2000-2014
Application No. 08/713,672
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
inferred from the teachings of the applied references a need
or desire to raise the temperature of the web in the airborne
dryer to a temperature above that of the web upon exiting the
radiant dryer. Accordingly, it is not apparent to us why one
skilled in the art at the time of appellants' invention would
have been motivated to modify the apparatus of LePisto,
Heikkilä or Karlsson so as to arrive at the claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain any of the
examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 5, 10 and 14
or, it follows, of claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-20 and 22-24
which depend therefrom.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007