Appeal No. 2000-1028
Application No. 08/950,522
product of the process at hand.” Id. We determine that the
examiner has failed to support this “position” by any convincing
reasoning or factual evidence.
Ritter teaches providing a plurality of sheets and then
overlapping these sheets before any coating or drying operations
(e.g., see col. 1, l. 63-col. 2, l. 5; col. 2, ll. 38-46). The
overlapping of the sheets throughout the first four stations is
maintained by “strict control” of the speeds of the drive
mechanisms (col. 4, ll. 15-17 and 24-27). The overlapping of the
sheets tends to prevent intermingling of the primer and backsize
materials (col. 6, ll. 15-18), as well as reduce the tendency of
the sheets to curl or wave (col. 8, ll. 48-53). The only
operation where the sheets are not overlapped occurs at the sheet
inserting station 5 (col. 8, ll. 9-20).
The subject matter on appeal requires an overlapping step
between the drying and second coating steps (see claim 18 on
appeal). The examiner has not met the initial burden of proof in
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness by showing any
convincing suggestion, motivation, or reasoning why one of
ordinary skill in this art would have an overlapping step between
the drying and second coating steps when Ritter fails to teach or
suggest this sequence. The “examiner’s position” that one of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007