Ex Parte DREW et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2000-1516                                                        
          Application 08/897,337                                                      

                                    THE INVENTION                                     
               The claimed invention is directed toward a method for making           
          a creped tissue.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                                  
               1.   A method for making creped tissue comprising: (a)                 
          forming a wet tissue web by depositing an aqueous papermaking               
          furnish onto a forming fabric; (b) partially dewatering the                 
          tissue web; (c) applying a creping adhesive and about 0.05 weight           
          percent or greater, based on the weight of dry fiber in the                 
          tissue web, of one or more softening agents to the surface of a             
          Yankee dryer; (d) adhering the tissue web to the surface of the             
          Yankee dryer such that the softening agent is transferred to the            
          tissue web; and (e) creping the web.                                        
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Soerens                          5,025,046         Jun. 18, 1991            
          Knight et al. (Knight)           5,234,547         Aug. 10, 1993            
          Oriaran et al. (Oriaran)         5,695,607         Dec.  9, 1997            
          (filed Apr.  1, 1994)                                                       
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:            
          claims 1-7 over Knight in view of Oriaran, and claim 8 over                 
          Soerens in view of Knight and Oriaran.                                      
                                       OPINION                                        
               The aforementioned rejections are affirmed as to claims 1-5            
          and 8, and reversed as to claims 6 and 7.                                   
               The appellants state that the claims stand or fall in two              
          groups: 1) claims 1-5 and 8, and 2) claims 6 and 7 (brief,                  
          page 2).  Consequently, although an additional reference is                 

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007