Appeal No. 2002-1222
Application 09/049,908
are not required in appealed claim 25; and Anderson does employ an embossing finishing unit
which comprises rolls providing a nip as required by appealed claim 25 (see id., page 20). Thus,
contrary to appellants’ position (id., page 17), all of the elements of appealed claim 25 arranged
as required therein are taught in Anderson and Sohma as we explained above.
We have also carefully considered all of appellants’ arguments which apply to appealed
claim 29 (brief, pages 21-26). We recognize that Baker discloses a reel threader as appellants
contend (brief, page 21). However, the examiner relies on the acknowledged prior art
vacuum-belt systems for guiding or threading a web in col. 1 of Baker which we discussed
above. Indeed, Baker describes the known vacuum-belt systems in essentially the same manner
as appellants describe the thread-up conveyor in the specification (page 3) and in the brief (page
24).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of the prior art admitted
by appellants, Anderson, Sohma and Seki with respect to appealed claims 25 through 28 and 32
through 34, and in the combined teachings of the prior art admitted by appellants, Anderson,
Sohma, Seki and Baker with respect to appealed claims 29 through 31 with appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 25 through 34 would have been obvious as a matter
of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Other Issues
We fail to find in the record any indication that appellants called the attention of the
examiner to United States Patents No. 6,355,139, issued March 12, 2002, and 6,4450,268,
issued August 27, 2002, both to Baggot et al. and both a continuation-in-part of application
08/845,098 which issued as United States Patent No. 6,030,496 (‘496 patent) on February 29,
2000. We note that the examiner rejected certain appealed claims under the judicial doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over the ‘496 patent in the final action mailed September
19, 2000 (Paper No. 15), which ground of rejection was overcome by appellants as set forth by
the examiner in the advisory action mailed February 9, 2001 (Paper No. 20). We suggest that
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007