Ex Parte Kayser - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2003-0298                                                                  Page 2                
              Application No. 09/497,797                                                                                  


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                            
                     The appellant's invention relates to a calender, a system, and a method for                          
              reducing the humidity in a calender for webs of moisture-containing material, such as                       
              paper, with a housing  having two side pieces and a roll stack, in which a space is                         
              limited at least by the roll stack and the web is situated between the side pieces                          
              (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to                   
              the appellant's brief.                                                                                      


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                      
              appealed claims are:                                                                                        
              Van Haag et al. (Van Haag)                 5,651,863                    July 29, 1997                       
              Palmatier                                  5,694,848                    Dec. 9, 1997                        



                     Claims 1 to 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                       
              Van Haag in view of Palmatier.                                                                              


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                        
              the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final                           
              rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed September 6, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 14,                             
              mailed June 7, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection,                     








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007