Appeal No. 2006-0609
Application No. 10/036,862
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Marino.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection is well founded. Accordingly,
we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through
34 under Section 103. Our reasons for this determination follow.
The examiner has found, and the appellants have not
disputed, that Marino teaches “an apparatus capable of being sold
to the public and further comprising a first and second housing
so as to house [,e.g., enclose,] moist wipes (note col. 3, lines
1-35) and . . . a dry roll of tissue/toilet paper (note col. 1,
lines 30-60).” Compare the Answer, page 4, with the Brief and
the Reply Brief in their entirety, specifically the Brief, pages
18-19. The appellants have not argued that the claimed first and
second fresh products in a package do not correspond to the
toilet paper and moist wipes in the apparatus taught by Marino.
See the Brief and Reply Brief in their entirety. Nor have the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007