Appeal No. 1999-1398 Page 7
Application No. 08/559,496
the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). This conclusion is buttressed by evidence of the conventionality of
using extended nip presses in papermaking machines in general and, in particular, in
several press nips in the same apparatus, as shown, for example, in Figure 2 of DE ‘404
and in Figure 5 of G ‘340.
We are not persuaded otherwise by the appellant’s argument that the examiner has
made no showing that suggestion to make such a change is provided by the prior art
(Brief, page 8 and 9). As we explained above, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found ample suggestion for such a modification to the system of Schmitt in
the explicit teachings of the references, taken in conjunction with the skill that should be
accorded to the artisan. In this regard, the appellant has not presented evidence to rebut
the examiner’s position, but has merely offered argument and conclusionary statements,
which do not constitute evidence of nonobviousness. See In re deBlauwe, 736 F.2d 699,
705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With regard to the use of pressure rolls opposite suction rolls, the appellant has
correctly pointed out that Schmitt states that “suction rolls are incapable of withstanding
high nip pressures, are costly to produce and operate and are not well suited for high-
speed operations” (column 1, lines 42-45), that “[s]uction rolls are only used in the instant
press arrangements to effect positive sheet or web transfer” (column 3, lines 44-46), and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007