Appeal 2007-2198
Application 10/324,181
aspect ratios (Answer 4 and 5; Ahr 7:25 – 8:18). Also, the Examiner has
determined that Turi discloses projections on a forming surface for forming
a product having ridges and valleys (Answer 5; Turi, col. 5, ll. 40-58;
example 1). In addition, the Examiner has found that a forming structure of
Shimalla can be used to form a product of Turi using water pressure and that
Shimalla discloses that such a forming member can have a projection having
an aspect ratio greater than 1 (Answer 5; Shimalla, col. 7, l. 52 – col. 10, l.
36; figs. 1-6).
Based on these teachings, the Examiner has taken the position that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
height of the aberrations on the top surface of forming member of Curro to
have an aspect ratio greater than 1 and a columnar shape so as to make a
product sheet with corresponding roughness features on a surface to allow
for better separation of such a sheet product from skin contact with a user
and for an improved feel of the sheet given the combined teachings of the
applied references (Answer 4-6).
Appellants do not argue that Curro does not describe a forming
structure having structure corresponding to elements (a) and (b) of
representative claim 1.1 Also, “Appellants agree that Curro teaches ‘raised
projections’ that are similar in structure to the claimed protrusions, but lack
the claimed columnar form and aspect ratio” (Br. 6). Furthermore,
“Appellants agree that Ahr teaches high aspect ratio projections on a film
surface” (id.). However, Appellants contend that the combined teachings of
1 Arguments not made in the Briefs are considered to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013