Appeal No. 2006-0111
Application 09/900,746
underlining added). Thus appellants’ specification impliedly
teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art that perforations, and
the accompanying breaking of the web, may be in the CD or MD but
preferably in the CD, and clearly does not limit or exclude any
direction of breaking. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., supra.
Accordingly, we determine that the claimed term “breaking” includes
breaking or tearing of the web material in any direction.
Additionally, the examiner notes that it was a “well known and
normal operation” in this art to produce multiple smaller rolls from
a single larger master roll (Answer, page 12). The examiner further
finds that such well known step of breaking the larger roll to form
smaller rolls would read on the “breaking the wet web” as required
by claim 1 on appeal (id.).
Appellants argue there is no reference to support the
examiner’s statement regarding this “well known” feature (Reply
Brief, page 3). Furthermore, appellants argue that it may have been
known to create smaller rolls of web from larger rolls by breaking
the web while it was dry but it would not have been obvious to do so
while the web is wet, especially in view of the teachings of Perini
(id.).
Appellants’ arguments are again not persuasive. As admitted by
appellants (specification, page 1, ll. 10-23), wet wipes have been
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007