Appeal No. 2003-1818
Application 09/223,602
imparts a series of fine fold lines to the portions of the web
adhered to the drum (see column 10, lines 1 through 15).
In applying Salvucci against claims 8 and 10, the examiner
submits that while Salvucci’s tissue is not explicitly disclosed
as meeting the claim limitations argued by the appellants, the
features required by the limitations are inherent in Salvucci’s
tissue due to the use of similar materials and production steps,
and in the alternative, that these features obviously would have
been provided by Salvucci’s production steps (see page 4 in the
answer).1
Although the tissues respectively claimed by the appellants
and disclosed by Salvucci share certain physical characteristics,
the steps used to produce these tissues differ in at least one
respect deemed quite significant by both Salvucci and the
appellants: Salvucci’s web is adhered to the Yankee creping drum
when at least 80% dry (see column 6, line 5 et seq.), while the
appellants web is adhered to Yankee creping drum when 20% to 60%
dry (see page 5 in the appellants’ specification). This
1 In actuality, the examiner’s position that the features in
question obviously would have been provided by Salvucci’s
production steps amounts to a redundant determination of
inherency.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007