Appeal Number: 2006-2066
Application Number: 10/743,461
Edwards discloses a shoe pressing unit in combination with
a counter roller that can be a Yankee cylinder that form a nip
between them through which a fiber material web passes (col. 15,
lines 59-64; col. 16, lines 26-27; figure 12). The fiber
material web passed through the nip can be on a combination of a
water absorbent carrier band and water-impermeable pressing band
(col. 3, lines 57-59; col. 11, lines 40-42). The shoe element
length can be less than about 7 inches (col. 16, lines 43-45).
That range overlaps the appellants’ recited range of greater
than approximately 80 mm (3.15 inches). The peak pressure in
the shoe press preferably is greater than about 2 MPa (col. 17,
lines 1-3). Because greater than about 2 MPa is a preferred
peak pressure, the reference would have fairly suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, a pressure somewhat outside the
preferred range, such as about 2 MPa, which falls within the
appellants’ recited range. Edwards would have fairly suggested,
to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of the full ranges
disclosed, including the portions which overlap those of the
appellants. See In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ
549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
The appellants argue that Edwards “provides no teaching or
suggestion for operation below the disclosed minimum peak
pressure of 2000 kN/m2” (reply brief, page 3). That argument is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007