Appeal 2007-1525
Application 10/664,628
Appellant claims a wet paper web transfer belt which comprises a wet
paper web side layer 11 having an elastic section 50 with fibers 20
protruding from the web-contacting surface of the elastic section, wherein
the average length of the protruding parts of the fibers is between 0.01 and
3 mm (Claim 1; Fig. 5).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A wet paper web transfer belt for use in the press part of a
closed draw papermaking machine, comprising a base body, a wet paper
web side layer having an elastic section, said elastic section having a wet
paper web-contacting surface, and a machine side layer, said belt having
fibers, parts of which are embedded in said elastic section, and parts of
which protrude from said web-contacting surface, wherein the average
length of the protruding parts of said fibers is between 0.01 and 3 mm.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:1
Lundström (Lundström ‘588) US 4,500,588 Feb. 19, 1985
Lundström (Lundström ‘643) US 4,529,643 Jul. 16, 1985
Valentine US 5,849,395 Dec. 15, 1998
Gstrein US 6,383,339 B1 May 7, 2002
Hagfors US 6,605,188 B2 Aug. 12, 2003
1 In the “Response to Argument” section of the Answer, the Examiner refers
to the Eklund Patent 5,298,124 of record as further supporting a conclusion
of obviousness (Answer 9). Because this patent is not included in the
Examiner’s statement of rejection, the Examiner should not have referred to
Eklund as supporting an obviousness conclusion. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d
1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). See also The
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 706.02(j) (8th ed., Rev. 5,
Aug. 2006). Therefore, we have not considered the Eklund patent in
assessing the merits of the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013