Appeal No. 2006-1557 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/220,514
interchangeable manner at various locations in the text of Elger, it is clear from a review
of the entirety of the patent disclosure that Elger employs those terms in a manner
consistent with the definition furnished at column 3, lines 23-27 thereof. Accordingly,
we agree with the examiner that representative claim 19 is anticipated by Elger and
affirm the stated § 102(e) rejection of claims 2-16, 19, 23 and 24.
Claims 21 and 22
Appellants argue dependent method claims 21 and 22 as a group. Thus, we
select claim 22 as the representative claim on which we shall decide this appeal for this
grouping of claims. Appellants argue that Elger requires that the web is cut (divided)
after it is dry whereas claim 22 requires that web dividing occurs at a location where the
web contains a substantial amount of water; that is, at a location immediately
downstream of a web former. We disagree with that argument.
As set forth above, the description in Elger of cutting the web
upstream of the dryer conveys a method wherein the raw web is cut
or divided into part-webs at a location immediately downstream of
either the head box, former or press (which sections are all
upstream of the dryer). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in
the art reading that description of Elger would have envisioned
cutting the web at a location after any of those limited number
of upstream sections, including the former section as required by
claim 22.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007