Appeal No. 2000-1516
Application 08/897,337
applied to claim 8, we limit our discussion of the affirmed
rejection, i.e., the rejection of claims 1-5 and 8, to one claim
in that group, i.e., claim 1. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565,
1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Rejection of claim 1
There is no dispute as to whether the applied prior art
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
all of the limitations of claim 1 except applying about 0.05 wt%
or greater of one or more softening agents to the surface of a
Yankee dryer.
Knight discloses a method for making creped sanitary
products including bathroom and facial tissues, comprising
applying a creping aid, i.e., an adhesive, and preferably a
release agent, to a Yankee cylinder (col. 1, lines 4-10, 30-33
and 54-58). Knight teaches that when his synthetic anionic
polymers are used as the creping aid, “the concentration of
release agent employed can be significantly reduced and even
eliminated compared to the levels currently used with
conventional creping aids” (col. 1, lines 45-48) and “the
resulting paper sheet is of superior bulk and softness even
though significantly lower amounts of the polymer and release
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007