Appeal No. 2003-0298 Page 13
Application No. 09/497,797
noted that this modification of Van Haag would have been motivated by a desire to
precisely control the calender housing atmosphere for improved processing of the web
material, and to prevent condensation within the housing.
The appellant's argument
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-13; reply brief, pp. 2-6) that the applied prior
art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. In particular, the appellant points out
that Van Haag teaches increasing the humidity in the calender housing and thus fails to
provide any teaching or suggestion for blowing dry air into the calender housing or for
reducing the humidity in the calender housing as set forth in the independent claims on
appeal. In addition, the appellant asserts that Palmatier fails to provide any teaching or
suggestion for modifying Van Haag in a manner directly contrary to its explicit
disclosure (i.e., to modify Van Haag to decrease humidity rather than increase
humidity).
Our position
We agree with the appellant that the combined teachings of Van Haag and
Palmatier would not have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to decrease humidity in the calender housing of Van Haag in
view of Van Haag's explicit teaching of providing steam generator 40 to increase
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007