Appeal 2007-2030
Application 10/482,842
The Examiner relies on Hings for the missing limitations, finding that
“Hings discloses multiple nozzles for applying multiple glue strands to surfaces to
be joined. One of ordinary skill could readily look to the teachings of Hings and
include first and second nozzles in the invention to Erkkila for applying the glue
strands” (Answer 9). However, the Examiner fails to address why one of skill in
the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to add the
first and second nozzles of Hings to the apparatus for end-to-end joining of paper
roll cores of Erkkila. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
In fact, the prior art provides no reason to modify Erkkila in the manner
suggested by the Examiner. Erkilla teaches using mechanical restraint rather than
a first glue to hold the ends of the paper rolls to be joined by a second glue. Thus,
it would have been unnecessary absent the teachings of the Appellants’ disclosure
to add a first glue meeting the limitations of the disputed claims. One of skill in
the art also would not have been motivated to add two nozzles to Erkkila to spray
two different types of glues with the respective properties recited in the plain
language of independent claim 18. There is no teaching in either reference to
indicate why one of skill in the art would add a second nozzle to the apparatus for
end-to-end joining of paper roll cores of Erkkila when Erkkila requires a single
type of glue. Hings teaches the use of multiple glue nozzles, but not to apply
different glues meeting the properties recited in claim 18. Instead, the multiple
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013