Appeal No. 2006-0111
Application 09/900,746
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perini or Deacon in
view of Win (Answer, page 9).
We affirm the rejections of (1) claims 13 and 15 over Deacon
alone; (2) claims 1-7, 9-19 and 21-30 over Deacon; and (3) claim 20
over Deacon in view of Win. We reverse the rejections of (1) claims
1-7, 9-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-48 over Perini and (2) the rejection of
claim 20 over Perini in view of Win. Accordingly, the decision of
the examiner is affirmed-in-part. We refer to the examiner’s Answer
and appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief for a complete exposition of
the opposing arguments. Our reasoning follows.
OPINION
A. The Rejections over Perini and Perini in view of Win
The examiner finds that Perini discloses a method of making wet
rolls comprising the steps of providing a web of material, applying
a wetting solution to the web to produce a wet web, and winding the
wet web into rolls (Answer, page 3). The examiner acknowledges that
Perini teaches that the web material should be “substantially dry”
at the changeover zone where the web is broken because the presence
of moisture or liquid impregnating the web material would make the
changeover difficult (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4).
However, the examiner concludes that this teaching of Perini would
have still rendered obvious the breaking of the web while wet with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007