Appeal No. 2002-1222
Application 09/049,908
substantially continuously impacts first web 1 while first parent roll 11 is being unwound (e.g.,
Fig. 1 and cols 1-2); unwinding a second web 2 from a second parent roll 12 by a drive means
not illustrated in the drawing, transporting edge 6 of end 3 of web 2 together with web 1 to the
embossing unit by means of web fixation means 16, such that end 3 of web 2 and web 1 pass into
nip 6 together and are thus spliced (e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 43-66, col. 2, lines 9-14 and 40-
62, col. 2, line 63, to col. 3, line 45); and after the splicing operation, web 2 continues to be
substantially continuously impacted in nip 6 as parent roll 12 continuous to be unwound (e.g.,
Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 61-66, col. 2, lines 15-21 and col. 3, lines 34-34 and 39-41). Anderson
does not describe the drive means to unwind parent rolls 11 and 12 on roll stand 10, thus
intending that drive means for unwinding web rolls known in the art should be used. The control
of unwinding the parent rolls taught in Anderson (e.g., col. 3, lines 23-45, and col. 4, lines 14-15)
suggests that electric drive means should be employed and indeed, Sohma describes in FIGs. 2, 3
and 5 a motor 33 with a housing that would have reasonably suggested an electric drive motor to
one of ordinary skill in this art, which is used to unwind the parent rolls X and Y on arms 4 and 5
(e.g., col. 2, lines 49-51, and col. 4, lines 21-25).
Based on this substantial evidence, we determine that, prima facie, one of ordinary skill
in this art routinely following the teachings and inferences that this person would have obtained
from the combined teachings of Anderson and Sohma,3 would have reasonably arrived at the
claimed method of splicing tissue webs encompassed by appealed claim 25 including each and
every limitation arranged as required by this claim as we have interpreted it above, without
recourse to appellants’ specification. In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is whether the
prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that [the claimed process] should
be carried out and would have a reasonable likelihood of success viewed in light of the prior art.
[Citations omitted] Both the suggestion and the expectation of success must be founded in the
prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007