Appeal No. 1999-1398 Page 9
Application No. 08/559,496
present in the prior art, or when “lightly nipped” against the surface of a smooth roll for web
control at high speeds, as expressly taught by Schmitt. A “lightly nipped” pair of rolls
would, in our view, necessarily provide some pressure in the nip in order to accomplish the
stated purpose of providing additional web control and, no doubt, also would perform
some amount of dewatering.
All that is required by the appellant’s claim 43 is that there be a first roll nip that is
downstream of the first extended nip and upstream from the first separating means “for
applying pressure across the width of the paper web.” The claim does not require the
pressure or the web speed to be “high.” It therefore is our conclusion that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize suction rolls in nips with pressure rolls in
arrangements such as that including Schmitt’s roll 117 in low speed and low pressure
operations, in view of the description of the prior art provided by Schmitt and the evidence
provided in the three secondary references, and in “lightly nipped” relationships even at
high speeds, in view of Schmitt’s own disclosure.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of the applied references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art both of the disputed modifications
of the Schmitt system, and thus they establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the subject matter of claim 43. This being the case, we will sustain the rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007