Appeal 2007-2030
Application 10/482,842
nozzles are used to spray first a mixture of thermosetting resin and catalyst and
second a mixture of thermosetting resin and chemical promoter to generate a
chemical reaction to speed the curing of the thermosetting resin (Finding of Fact
13). To the extent that it might be desirable to accelerate drying of the glue, one of
skill in the art would not be motivated to seek out the teaching of Hings, because
Erkkilla teaches heating the jacket of the clamp sleeve assembly rather than
chemically accelerating curing or drying (Finding of Fact 5).
While it may appear obvious in hindsight to combine the multiple nozzles of
Hings with the apparatus for end-to-end joining of paper roll cores of Erkkila and
to use those nozzles to apply first and second glues with the properties required by
claim 18 to join paper rolls end-to-end, we see no reason from the prior art relied
upon by the Examiner why one having ordinary skill in the art would have added
these features to the apparatus of Erkkila absent the Appellants’ teaching to do so.
The Examiner thus erred in rejecting claim 18 as obvious over Erkkila in view of
Hings. With regard to remaining rejected dependent claims 9-10 and 19-21,
because these claim rejections rely upon the underlying rejection of independent
claim 18, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1076, 5 USQP2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent
claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is
nonobvious).
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013