Appeal 2007-2198
Application 10/324,181
§ 103(a) Rejection Over Curro, Ahr, Shimalla, and Turi and Trokhan
Representative rejected claim 2 additionally requires that the forming
structure includes a polymeric material.
We are in complete agreement with the Examiner that the selection of
a polymeric material as a material of construction used in the forming
structure of Curro would have been a matter within the ordinary skill of the
art given that such materials are well-known as being available for
constructing a component of a web forming device as evidenced by Trokhan
(Answer 6 and 7; Trokhan, Abstract). Moreover, we note that Turi
discloses that a backing member of a film forming device can be made from
a specified acetal copolymer resin as an alternative to a metal, such as
aluminum (Turi, col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 3). Also, Shimalla teaches that
acetyl or other polymers can be used in making a forming apparatus sleeve
(Shimalla, col. 9, ll. 26-28). Weighed against these factual determinations,
Appellants’ contention that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ polymer material as a construction
material for the forming apparatus of Curro is not persuasive. In this regard,
we note that representative claim 2 does not require that all parts of the
forming structure are made solely using a polymer; but, only that a polymer
is used somewhere in the forming structure.
It follows that we shall affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 2-4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Curro taken with Ahr, Shimalla, Turi, and Trokhan.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013