Appeal 2007-2862
Application 10/955,533
polyethylene oxide to Kato’s product in order to achieve the advantages
disclosed in Nielson. (Answer 4).
Appellant concedes that the prior art discloses the addition of high
molecular weight polyethylene oxide as a process aid to improve formation
of wet laid paper webs. (Br. 4). However, Appellant argues that “while it
may be obvious to use” friction reduction compounds to make the wet laid
sheets of Kato, “it would not be obvious to add” these compounds to the
sheets of Kato. (Br. 4). More specifically, Appellant maintains that “[t]hose
familiar with papermaking will appreciate that the high molecular weight
polyethylene oxides have no mechanism by which they are retained by the
cellulose fibers during web formation. Consequently, these process aids
pass through the sheet during formation and exit the system with the process
water.” (Br. 4). Thus, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s proposed
combination would not result in a product containing a friction reduction
compound as claimed. (Br. 4).
ISSUE
Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellant, the issue
before us is: Has the Examiner established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the combined teachings of the references disclose or suggest a
wiping product which inherently possesses the claimed friction reduction
compound?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013