Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756
the fiber webs to be dewatered, a second surface 35 opposite the
first surface 34 for contacting the dewatering machinery
employed in the dewatering operation, and conduits 36 extending
between the first surface 34 and the second surface 35 for
channeling water from the fiber webs which rest on the first
surface 34 to the second surface 35 and to provide areas into
which the fibers of the fiber web can be deflected and
rearranged. On page 4 of the answer, the examiner states that
it would have been obvious to substitute the resin pattern
formation method of Rodish for that used in 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. The examiner states “The use of the
Rodish method in Trokhan to form the patterns presented in
Trokhan would have interconnected the resin beads from the first
and second extrusion dies and formed the claimed super-knuckles
at the cross-over points.” The examiner has not explained how
the expectation to use the method of Rodish would have formed
the desired pattern on the fabric back of Trokhan would have
been a reasonable one. In this context, we agree with
appellant’s arguments set forth on pages 4-5 of the brief. That
is, the examiner has proposed modification of Trokhan by
substituting the method of Rodish is not supported by an
explanation that the resultant pattern would provide the
function necessary in Trokhan. Also, the examiner provides for
no motivation other than “the substitution of one known
equivalent technique for another would have been obvious even if
the prior art does expressly suggest the substitution” (answer,
pages 5-6) is in error. The examiner has provided no basis that
the coating technique of Rodish is an art equivalent to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007