Ex Parte Ampulski

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2004

09888756 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not precedent of the Board.

Paper No. 19

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT STANLEY AMPULSKI

____________

Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before WARREN, DELMENDO and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-17.
On page 2 do the brief, appellant states that the claims
stand and fall together. We therefore consider claim 1 in this
appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7 and 8)(2000).

Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

2
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A process for making a papermaking belt
comprising a reinforcing element and a resinous
framework joined thereto, the process comprising the
steps of:
(a) providing a forming surface having a
longitudinal direction and a transverse direction;
(b) providing an extrudable resinous material;
(c) providing at least a first extrusion die
structured to extrude the resinous material, wherein the
at least first extrusion die is configured to move
relative to the forming surface in at least a first
direction.
(d) supplying the resinous material into the at
least first extrusion die and extruding the resinous
material therefrom onto the forming surface in a pre-
selected pattern comprising a plurality of discrete
protuberances, thereby forming a resinous framework;
(e) continuously moving the at least first
extrusion die relative to the forming surface in the
first direction;
(f) causing the resinous framework and the
reinforcing element to join together; and
(g) solidifying the resinous framework joined to
the reinforcing element, thereby forming the papermaking
belt.

Claims 1-2 and 4-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Trokhan in view of Rodish.
We refer to pages 3-4 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in this rejection. At the top of page 4,
the examiner acknowledges that Trokhan fails to teache “applying
the plurality of resin beads with the moving extrusion dies.”
The examiner states “it would have been obvious to one skilled
in the art use any conventional means of applying the resin
pattern to the fabric with the expectation of producing the
desired result.” The examiner states that Rodish teaches
“applying resin pattern to a moving fabric web, where the resin
Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

3
pattern is formed by reciprocating two extruder dies across the
moving web, wherein each extruder die extrudes a plurality of
resin beads, such that the desired pattern is formed on the
web.” The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
substitute the resin pattern formation method of Rodish, for
that of Trokhan, in the process of Trokhan, with the expectation
that the method of Rodish would have formed the desired resin
pattern on the fabric web of Trokhan since it is shown by Rodish
that such a method can be used to form any desired resin pattern
on a fabric web.
Beginning on page 2 of the brief, appellant argues that
Rodish is not in the field of appellant’s endeavor. Appellant
states the invention is considered with papermaking belts used
for making an absorbent paper products and processes for making
such belts. Appellant argues that Rodish is concerned with
strengthening paper or textile fabric by coating the paper or
other substrate with a mesh-like pattern of plastic reinforcing
stripes or strands which increases the tensile strength of the
substrate. Appellant also argues that Rodish is not reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned. Appellant argues that the present invention is to
provide a novel process for making a belt, thereby reducing the
amount of the resinous material required to construct a similar
papermaking belt of the prior art. Appellant argues that the
prior art teaches a process wherein a continuous, monotonous
layer of resin is applied to a reinforcing element and the
resinous layer is then selectively cured and uncured portions of
the resin are subsequently removed to leave a resinous pattern
formed by the cured portions of the resin joined to the
reinforcing element. Appellant refers to Trokhan as such a
prior art teaching. We agree. That is, the Background section
Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

4
of Trokhan illustrates that in processes for manufacturing paper
products, papermaking belts are used. See column 1, line 55 –
column 3, line 49. An objective of Trokhan is to buy a process
for improving the belt life of papermaking belts. See column 4,
lines 36-40. Details of how resinous material is supplied is
set forth in column 27, beginning at line 35. Here, Trokhan
discloses that third set in the process is the application of a
coating of resin to the reinforcing structure. In a preferred
method, the liquid resin is applied to the reinforcing structure
at two stages. The first stage at which resin is applied is at
the place indicated by extrusion header 79 illustrated in Figure
13. At the first stage, extrusion header 79 is used to fill the
interstices in the reinforcing structure 33 from the backside.
This permits a suitable amount of photosensitive resin to adhere
to the backside of the reinforcing structure 33 so the same can
be imparted with a texture on the backside in the steps which
will be subsequently described. Trokhan states “it is necessary
that liquid photosensitive resin 70 be evenly applied across the
width of reinforcing structure 33 and that the requisite
quantity of material be worked through the interstices 39 and
into all available void volume of the reinforcing structure 33
as the design of the papermaking belt 10 requires.” A fifth
step in the process is controlling the thickness of the coating
to a per-selected value. See column 28, lines 30-32. A sixth
step in the process comprises positioning a mask 74 in
contacting relation with the liquid photosensitive 70. The
purpose of the mask 74 is to shield certain areas of liquid
photosensitive resin from exposure to light. In this way, a
per-selected pattern can be chosen. See column 28, lines
49-59.
Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

5
Trokhan discloses that a preferred method for forming an
improved papermaking belt having a textured backside involves
use of a woven element which is constructed of strands of
differing ultraviolet light transmission characteristics. The
woven element is constructed in such a manner that the strands
on top of the resinous woven element transmit ultraviolet light
to high degree, while strands on the bottom or the backside do
not transmit, but instead absorb ultraviolet light. This causes
the ultraviolet light to be transmitted throughout the photo
sensitive resin network except in the portion of the network
which lies under the bottom strands. As a result, the
photosensitive resin which lies under the bottom strands is not
cured, and can be removed during the final steps set out above,
leaving a series of depressions in the backside of the
papermaking belt under the absorptive strands. See column 30,
lines 43-61.
The aforementioned disclosure of Trokhan is a description
of how the papermaking belt is formed. The papermaking belt is
generally comprised of two primary elements: a solid polymeric
resin framework 32 and a reinforcing structure 33, both of which
are first seen together in FIG. 4. The resin framework 32 has a
first surface 34 for contacting the fiber webs to be dewatered,
a second surface 35 opposite the first surface 34 for contacting
the dewatering machinery employed in the dewatering operation,
and conduits 36 extending between the first surface 34 and the
second surface 35 for channeling water from the fiber webs which
rest on the first surface 34 to the second surface 35 and to
provide areas into which the fibers of the fiber web can be
deflected and rearranged. See column 19, lines 14-31. The
portion of the resin framework 32 which is exposed on the top
surface of the papermaking belt and which comprises a solid
Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

6
portion of the first surface 34 of the framework 32 resembles a
net in appearance and is referred to as the “top side network
surface.” The portion of the framework 32 which is exposed on
the backside of the papermaking belt 10 referred to as the
“backside network surface.” As seen in FIGS. 2 and 4, the top
side network surface 34a is macroscopically monoplanar,
patterned, and continuous. See column 20, lines 43-68 and
column 21, lines 1-7. It is the aforementioned top side network
surface and backside network surface that results from the
process for making the papermaking belt set forth in columns 25-
31 of Trokhan. It is true that Rodish is directed to a method
and apparatus for providing a substrate such as a textile fabric
or a paper sheet with a mesh like pattern of reinforcing plastic
stripes or strands. The invention of Rodish is particularly
useful for reinforcing paper used for manufacturing articles
carrying paperbacks. See column 1, lines 9-14. An object of
Rodish is to provide a method and apparatus for coating a
surface of linearly displaced web of paper or other substrate
material with a regular mesh-like pattern of plastic reinforcing
stripes or strands, preferably diamond-shaped or lozenge-shaped,
which increases the tensile strength of the substrate in a
lateral as well as longitudinal direction. See column 2, lines
15-24. Hence, the purpose of coating the web of paper in Rodish
with a mesh-like pattern or plastic reinforcing stripes or
strands is for reinforcing the paper product. The examiner has
not explained how coating the reinforcing structure 33 of
Trokhan using the method of Rodish would result in the paper
contacting surface 11 of the papermaking belt 10 as depicted in
FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 of Trokhan while achieving the function as
described in column 19, beginning at line 14 of Trokhan. That
is, the resin framework 32 has a first surface 34 for contacting
Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

7
the fiber webs to be dewatered, a second surface 35 opposite the
first surface 34 for contacting the dewatering machinery
employed in the dewatering operation, and conduits 36 extending
between the first surface 34 and the second surface 35 for
channeling water from the fiber webs which rest on the first
surface 34 to the second surface 35 and to provide areas into
which the fibers of the fiber web can be deflected and
rearranged. On page 4 of the answer, the examiner states that
it would have been obvious to substitute the resin pattern
formation method of Rodish for that used in Trokhan with the
expectation that the method of Rodish would have formed the
desired resin pattern on the fabric web of Trokhan since it is
shown by Rodish that such a method can be used to form any
desired resin pattern. The examiner states “The use of the
Rodish method in Trokhan to form the patterns presented in
Trokhan would have interconnected the resin beads from the first
and second extrusion dies and formed the claimed super-knuckles
at the cross-over points.” The examiner has not explained how
the expectation to use the method of Rodish would have formed
the desired pattern on the fabric back of Trokhan would have
been a reasonable one. In this context, we agree with
appellant’s arguments set forth on pages 4-5 of the brief. That
is, the examiner has proposed modification of Trokhan by
substituting the method of Rodish is not supported by an
explanation that the resultant pattern would provide the
function necessary in Trokhan. Also, the examiner provides for
no motivation other than “the substitution of one known
equivalent technique for another would have been obvious even if
the prior art does expressly suggest the substitution” (answer,
pages 5-6) is in error. The examiner has provided no basis that
the coating technique of Rodish is an art equivalent to the
Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

8
coating technique in Trokhan. For these reasons, we reverse the
rejection.

REVERSED

CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
ROMULO H. DELMENDO ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAP/sld
Appeal No. 2003-0814
Application No. 09/888,756

9
THE PROCTER & GAMBEL COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION
WINTON HILL TECHNICAL CENTER-BOX 161
6110 CENTER HILL AVENUE
CINCINNATI, OH 45224