Appeal No. 2000-1025
Application No. 08/726,643
in the absence of unexpected results, the location and
extent/pattern of adhesive applied/employed to adhere the
respective plies of the rolled, multiply sheet stock
material together is held/seen to constitute at most an
obvious matter of choice/experience to one of ordinary skill
in this art.
OPINION
These rejections cannot be sustained.
Even if the applied prior art were combined in the manner
proposed by the examiner, the result would not satisfy a number
of the appealed claim requirements. Specifically, the examiner’s
proposed combination would not satisfy the appealed method claim
1 (and correspondingly the appealed product-by-process claim 13)
requirements of “providing an elongated band of stock material
. . . formed from at least two elongated paper webs . . . adhered
together . . . ” and of “alternatingly crumpling the band
longitudinally on first one side of the longitudinal axis of the
band and then on the other side of the longitudinal axis of the
band to form pleats in the band” (emphasis added).
Contrary to the examiner’s apparent belief, the paper webs
provided by Ottaviano as his stock material band are not adhered
together. By way of explanation, this “adhered together”
function is not performed by patentee’s adhesive strip 234 (e.g.,
see figure 19) as the examiner seems to believe. Instead, “the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007