Appeal No. 2006-1557 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/220,514
35 U.S.C. § 103, as being obvious over Elger.1
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
§ 102(e) Alternative Rejection
1 Smook, Handbook For Pulp & Paper Technologists, Vol. 2 (1992), pp. 228-29
was made of record by the examiner (answer, page 5) to substantiate the examiner’s
official notice of the fact that paper machines typically include a head box, former, press
and dryer as set forth at page 2 of the final action. Appellants have not contested those
factual assertions of the examiner in the briefs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007