Appeal No. 1999-1398 Page 6
Application No. 08/559,496
use in the art of extended nips in both the first and second roll locations. As for the missing
pressure roll opposite Schmitt’s suction roll, the examiner is of the view that adding such a
roll would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Dorfel, Ely or Rempel, suggestion
being found in the known advantage that more press nips provide more dewatering.
These two features are the only two differences argued by the appellant.
We agree with the examiner that the subject matter of claim 43 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the applied
references. Wicks is directed to press sections for papermaking machines, and with
regard to the substitution of extended nip presses for nip presses, makes the following
statement in column 2, lines 51-58:
While the presses shown as N and N-1 are illustrated
as conventional roll presses, extended nip presses may be
employed, and the same advantages of the use of the
impervious belt occurs. Extended nip presses, as will be
recognized by those versed in the art, are presses utilizing
elongate press nips where the pressing pressure may be
obtained such as from a dynamic layer of hydraulic liquid.
This is a very explicit teaching that it was known in the art at the time of the appellant’s
invention to employ extended nip presses in place of conventional nip presses. In addition,
from our perspective, it is implicit in the foregoing statement that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized the advantages of using an extended nip press in place of a
conventional nip press, for in an obviousness assessment, skill is presumed on the part of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007