Appeal No. 2001-0394
Application 09/012,508
invention overcomes the aforementioned drawback of the prior
art devices through the use of air boundary layer strippers
configured to remove air entrained by the backing roll and
material web and between the opposite side of the material web
and the applicator roll. See Appeal brief, pages 2-3, Summary of
Invention.
DISCUSSION
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness rests on the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Where an obvious-
ness determination is based on the combination of prior art
references, there must be some “teaching, suggestion or incentive
supporting the combination.” In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688,
2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[P]articular findings
must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no
knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected the[]
components for combination in the manner claimed.” In re Kotzab,
217 F.3d 1365, 1371, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). For
the reasons discussed below, the examiner has failed to establish
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007