Appeal No. 2002-1222
Application 09/049,908
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.”).
Turning now to the ground of rejection involving appealed claim 29, we noted above in
interpreting appealed claim 29 that this claim adds only the limitation of a thread-up conveyor for
transporting the leading edge of a tissue web from a second parent roll to the finishing unit, and
that appellants describe such a conveyor to include a vacuum-belt system (see above p. 8). In
stating the ground of rejection with respect to this claim, the examiner takes the position that
Baker discloses a threader system which functions as a thread-up conveyor with vacuum means,
citing col. 1, lines 64-68, thereof, and concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the process of Anderson and Sohma by using a known
method of transporting a leading edge of a web from a parent roll to a desired position in the
tissue making process (answer, page 9). We find that the cited passage from Baker
acknowledges that the “great variety of systems [that] have been used for guiding or threading a
web through paper manufacturing machinery” includes “vacuum-belt systems in which a vacuum
draws the web against a porous belt which delivers the tail or web to the desired position” (col. 1,
lines 61-63 and 64-66).4
Based on the substantial evidence in the combined teachings of Anderson, Sohma and
Baker, we agree with the examiner 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 these references,5 would have modified the method of splicing tissue webs shown by
Anderson and Sohma as applied above, by using an apparatus component which functions as a
3 A discussion of the prior art admitted by appellants and Seki is not necessary to our decision on
this ground of rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-04, 190 USPQ 425, 426-28
(CCPA 1976).
4 We observe that Focke discloses a vacuum belt thread-up conveyor in connection with an
unwind stand (see above pp. 5-6) as acknowledged by the examiner (answer, page 11), but the
examiner has not applied Focke to appealed claims 29 through 31.
5 A discussion of the prior art admitted by appellants and Seki is not necessary to our decision on
this ground of rejection. See Kronig, supra.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007