Appeal No. 2005-2487
Application 08/900,254
abstract)(web heated, cold rollers); (Frank, column 5, lines 6-43)(web heated, cold
rollers, hot rollers an alternative); (Gosden, example 5)(heat web, cold
rollers)(Examiner’s Answer, page 8). We find no fault with this conclusion, based on the
substantial evidence in this record. The appellant has not indicated why the choice of
one versus the other is significant, only that the choice of one in conjunction with the
step of excluding reheating is not taught or suggested.
As stated in In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982)
“Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to
render such substitution obvious.” The examiner pointed out the two equivalent
alternatives known to those of skill in the art, thus impliedly suggesting to one of
ordinary skill in the art to select one from two known equivalent alternatives to activate
the web.
As to the element of “without subsequent reheating, ” Yamamoto discloses a
process (examples 13-14) which does not describe reheating the sheet after
calendering. (column 8, see also table 3).
The appellant urges that Yamamoto’s arrangement allows the avoidance of
subsequent reheating only when the rollers are heated (Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 13-
17). The thrust of the argument seems to be that when Yamamoto does not use a hot
calendar roll to press the sheets, the process of Yamamoto then must require
subsequent heating to dry the sheets, directly contrary to claim 1. (Appeal Brief, page
9, lines 1-18). We are not persuaded by this argument.
First, there is no evidence that subsequent reheating is necessary to dry the
sheet if the web is pre-heated (choice A available to the skilled artisan). The appellant
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007