Appeal No. 96-2630
Application No. 08/259,824
In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981);
In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
It is not apparent, nor have the appellants demonstrated by any
evidentiary showing, how the wet-pressed limitations in the
appealed claims distinguish the claimed tissue sheet from the
through-dried sheet which would have been suggested by Busker.
This being the case, the test results in the specification
relating to wet-pressed tissues which are alluded to on page 9 of
the brief have little, if any, probative value as to the
obviousness of the product recited in the appealed claims.
For these reasons and based upon the argument and evidence
before us, the differences between the subject matter recited in
representative claims 23 and 26 and the prior art as embodied by
the Busker reference are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these claims as
being unpatentable over Busker in view of Burgess or Benz, the
examiner’s application of Burgess or Benz being, at worst,
superfluous.
We shall also sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 24, 25 and 27 through 30 as being unpatentable over
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007