Appeal Number: 2006-2066
Application Number: 10/743,461
not persuasive even if it is correct, because a peak pressure of
2000 kN/m2 (2 MPa) falls within the appellants’ recited range of
less than or equal to approximately 2 MPa.
The appellants argue that Edwards would not have enabled
one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed machine
without undue experimentation (reply brief, pages 3-5). The
appellants provide no evidence or reasoning in support of that
argument, and there is no apparent reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been able, through no more than
routine experimentation, to use the full range of Edwards’ press
nip lengths and maximum pressing pressures.
We therefore conclude that the machine claimed in the
appellants’ claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art over Edwards.
Remand
We remand the application to the examiner to address on the
record whether the machine claimed in the appellants’ claims 2-
33 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art over Edwards, alone or in combination with the
additional references applied in the examiner’s rejections
and/or other prior art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007