Appeal No. 2001-0394
Application 09/012,508
why one of ordinary skill in the art, absent knowledge of the
claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Beisswanger and Heinzmann to achieve the claimed
invention and, therefore, has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness.
The examiner found that Beisswanger teaches the claimed
invention “except the boundary layer stripper disposed between
the web and the backing roll in the entrance gore between the
backing roll and the web and the features of the stripper.”
Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 17, mailed May 23, 2000, page 5.
The examiner notes that Heinzmann teaches an air guide box for
stabilizing a paper web, the guide box being located in the
entrance gore between the roll and the web. Id. “Heinzmann
teaches that the guide boxes can be used in the paper making
technology and in other technology where the webs are subjected
to a similar handling.” Id., page 9. According to the Examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to modify Beisswanger to
use the air guide box system of Heinzmann
with an expectation of improved web handling,
since Beisswanger teaches a coating system
that involves supplying a web that wraps
around a backing roll and Heinzmann teaches
that the stability of webs that wrap around
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007