Appeal 2006-2301
Application 10/606,988
at different rates at a speed different from the speed of the first conveyor
apparatus after the material has left the oven (see Br. 9, last para.).
However, the Examiner’s rejection is under § 103, and it is the combination
of references that would have suggested utilizing a pulling apparatus in the
method of Brossy.
We are also not persuaded that Barry teaches away from the claimed
invention by requiring that sheets 11 and 12 provide a stable, non-shearing
environment for the foam. However, this argument misses the thrust of the
Examiner’s rejection by proposing an ill-advised modification of Barry. As
explained by the Examiner, Barry is cited simply as evidence for the
obviousness of employing a pulling apparatus for fibrous material
downstream of an oven. We agree with the Examiner that Barry is
analogous art with respect to the field of endeavor of transporting a fibrous
material through an oven.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013