Appeal No. 2003-1818
Application 09/223,602
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 10 through
13 based on Carstens
The examiner’s rather ambiguous explanation of this
rejection (see page 5 in the answer) indicates that it rests on
an eclectic combination of the two-layer tissue parameters
summarized in Table Ib, the general basis weight ranges for two-
layer tissues set forth in the passage bridging columns 7 and 8,
the bottom layer of the two-layer tissue shown in Figure 1, the
bottom layer of the three-layer tissue shown in Figure 38, and
some unfounded assumptions regarding the stretchability and bulk
density of the bottom layers. In short, the only suggestion for
this proposed combination stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 10 through 13 as being
unpatentable over Carstens.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 8 and 10
through 13 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007