Appeal 2006-1483
Application 10/159,395
has a lower density than the first plurality of regions, the second plurality of
regions has at least one foreshortening ridge therein, the at least one
foreshortening ridge being spaced apart from the plane in the Z direction.
II. PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies upon the following sole reference:
Morgan, Jr. US 3,994,771 Nov. 30, 1976
III. REJECTION
Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by the disclosure of Morgan.
IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCULSIONS
Upon careful consideration of the claims, Specification and prior art
reference, including the arguments advanced by both the Appellants and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions, we determine that the
Examiner’s §102 (a) rejection is well-founded. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22 and 24 on appeal under §102(a) for
the reasons set forth in the Answer and below.
As evidence of anticipation of the subject matter defined by claims 22
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), the examiner relies on the disclosure of
Morgan. See Answer at 3. Morgan teaches soft and bulky tissue papers
having “discrete patterned arrays of fibers extending outwardly therefrom,”
along with “improvements in softness and tactile impression.” See col. 1,
ll. 9-37 and Figures 4-16. These tissue papers are made as follows:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007