Appeal No. 1999-1398 Page 8
Application No. 08/559,496
that “by eliminating suction rolls and their auxiliary equipment, a substantial savings is
realized in capital outlay and in operating costs” (column 5, lines 51-54). However, we do
not agree with the appellant that these statements compel the conclusion that it would not
have been obvious to install another roll opposite suction roll 117 in the Schmitt system to
create a pressure nip in that location.
It is clear from Schmitt that prior art press arrangements included the use of suction
rolls in nips with pressure rolls for dewatering (column 1, lines 40-41, 48-49 and 54-55). In
fact, it is a novel feature of the Schmitt invention to process wide webs at high operating
speeds while achieving the high water removal “normally associated with heavily loaded
suction press nips” (column 2, lines 45-50). Such use also is documented in Dorfel, Ely
and Rempel. It also is interesting, in this regard, to note that notwithstanding Schmitt’s
comments quoted above, the system disclosed in Figure 2 utilizes a suction roll (117) that
is in “a nip-defining relation with the plain-surfaced press roll 119 . . . the suction transfer
roll 117 is lightly nipped against the surface of the plain-surfaced press roll 119 and
prevents blowing or the like thereby insuring more positive web or sheet control” (column 8,
lines 32-36). Therefore, in our view, consideration of the entire Schmitt specification leads
to the conclusion that Schmitt does not instruct the artisan that suction rolls cannot at all be
used in nips with smooth rolls, but that they have disadvantages in certain situations, which
do not include the slow web speeds and low pressures mentioned by Schmitt as being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007