Appeal 2006-2867
Application 10/771,969
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 81-87, 111-114, 119, and 120 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the APA in view of Gordon (Answer 3).
Claims 90-98, 115-118, 121, and 122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the APA in view of Gordon and Nissing
(Answer 3).
Claims 81-87, 111-114, 119, and 120 stand provisionally rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claim 41 of copending Application No. 10/664,342
(Answer 4).
Claims 90-98, 115-118, 121, and 122 stand provisionally rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claim 41 of copending Application No. 10/664,342 in view of Nissing
(Answer 4).1
Appellants contend that Gordon does not disclose a roll of wet wipes,
actually teaching away from wet wipes by disclosing wipes that are not wet
until an emulsion is ruptured during use (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-3).
Appellants contend that Gordon does not disclose or suggest any
antibacterial benefit associated with his encapsulated wetting composition
(Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3).
1 According to Office records, we note that Application No. 10/664,342 has
issued as U. S. Patent No. 7,179,502 on Feb. 20, 2007. Therefore, these two
“provisional” rejections are considered as regular obviousness-type double
patenting rejections.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013