Appeal No. 2006-0111
Application 09/900,746
new roll (page 8, ll. 25-31). Perini teaches that this “changeover”
is a “critical operation” and takes place with web material that is
“substantially dry” (sentence bridging pages 8-9). Perini further
teaches that the presence of moisture or liquid impregnating the web
material “would make the changeover difficult or would in some cases
even render it impossible,” with the consequence that the winding
process could not be performed continuously (page 9, ll. 1-4). We
determine that these teachings of Perini alone would have suggested
that breaking of wet web material in the changeover zone would have
been unlikely to produce the objective of appellants’ invention,
i.e., winding of the wet web into a roll, and the artisan would have
been led in a path divergent from appellants’ invention. Appellants
were proceeding against the conventional wisdom as taught by Perini,
who taught that the web material risks breakage through weakness
caused by moistening (page 8, ll. 6-7). Additionally, we determine
that the entire tenor of the Perini reference teaches away from
appellants’ invention. Perini repeatedly teaches that the
moistening solution should be applied to the web material after the
tearing or cutting of the web material (i.e., the “interruption
zone”; see page 2, ll. 5-12; page 3, ll. 1-30; page 4, ll. 3-5; page
7, ll. 16-21; page 9, ll. 28-31; and page 10, ll. 8-11). Perini
further teaches that the nozzles should be located “[i]n order to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007