Appeal No. 2006-0609
Application No. 10/036,862
explained why the employment of at least one wet wipe is not
reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to
improve the removal of soil or body waste on a body surface. At
least one wet wipe, unlike dry wiping2, would have been expected
by one of ordinary skill in the art to loosen and remove soil or
body waste on a body surface due to the moisture or water therein
just as a wet mop, due to its wetness, is known to loosen and
remove soil on a floor surface better than a dry mop. Bozek, 416
F.2d at 1390, 163 USPQ at 549; Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743, 226 USPQ
at 774.
Second, the appellants have not demonstrated that the
evidence relied upon is commensurate in scope with claims 2
through 4 on appeal. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218
USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029,
1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). While the evidence relied
upon is limited to employing the so-called “KIMWIPES® EX-L-
Wipers” having specific composition, structure and moisture
content (not identified), claims 2 through 4 are not so limited.
2Any subsequent dry wipe is reasonably expected by one of
ordinary skill in the art to absorb moisture and remove any
remaining loosened soil.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007