Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756
pattern is formed by reciprocating two extruder dies across the
moving web, wherein each extruder die extrudes a plurality of
resin beads, such that the desired pattern is formed on the
web.” The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
substitute the resin pattern formation method of Rodish, for
that of Trokhan, in the process of Trokhan, with the expectation
that the method of Rodish would have formed the desired resin
pattern on the fabric web of Trokhan since it is shown by Rodish
that such a method can be used to form any desired resin pattern
on a fabric web.
Beginning on page 2 of the brief, appellant argues that
Rodish is not in the field of appellant’s endeavor. Appellant
states the invention is considered with papermaking belts used
for making an absorbent paper products and processes for making
such belts. Appellant argues that Rodish is concerned with
strengthening paper or textile fabric by coating the paper or
other substrate with a mesh-like pattern of plastic reinforcing
stripes or strands which increases the tensile strength of the
substrate. Appellant also argues that Rodish is not reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned. Appellant argues that the present invention is to
provide a novel process for making a belt, thereby reducing the
amount of the resinous material required to construct a similar
papermaking belt of the prior art. Appellant argues that the
prior art teaches a process wherein a continuous, monotonous
layer of resin is applied to a reinforcing element and the
resinous layer is then selectively cured and uncured portions of
the resin are subsequently removed to leave a resinous pattern
formed by the cured portions of the resin joined to the
reinforcing element. Appellant refers to Trokhan as such a
prior art teaching. We agree. That is, the Background section
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007