Appeal No. 2004-2284
Application 09/832,873
giving due consideration to the weight of appellants’ arguments in the brief. See generally,
Oetiker, supra; Piasecki, supra.
We considered above appellants’ arguments with respect to the combined teachings of
Egenes, Riquet and Aktiebolag (brief, pages 18-19), and Kriebel ‘653 is not relied on in such
respects. We find no argument advanced by appellants which establishes that Kriebel ‘653 does
not provide the teachings relied on by the examiner (see brief, pages 19-20).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Egenes, Riquet,
Aktiebolag and Kriebel ‘653 with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims
2 through 4 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
process of dispersing fibrous paper stock encompassed by appealed claim 8 would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of Egenes, Riquet, Aktiebolag, Davenport and Kriebel
‘6538 to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by specifying “rotating the mallets at a circumferential
speed in a range between about 1 to 5 m/s.” The examiner finds that Davenport discloses at col.
14, l. 5, to col. 15, l. 14, “using a mallet roller (Figure 8(62)) to predisperse and shred paper
stock pieces less than 6 inches (152 mm) prior to a disc disperser and teaches that the mallet
roller reduces the energy needed to disperse paper stock” (answer, page 5). We note in this
respect the teachings at col. 5, ll. 6-7 and 13-15, and col. 6, ll. 58-67, of Davenport. On this
evidentiary basis, the examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to use a slower
speed of rotation for the predisperser of . . . [Egenes] as Davenport teaches that the mallet saves
energy over predispersing machines” (answer, page 5).
We find that the disclosure in Davenport would have reasonably suggested to one of
ordinary skill in this art that the process parameters are result effective variables. Thus, as the
examiner points out, prima facie, this person would have arrived at a workable or optimum range
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007