Appeal No. 96-2630
Application No. 08/259,824
given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
[Citations omitted.] If, however, the
disclosure is sufficient to show that the
natural result flowing from the operation as
taught would result in the performance of the
questioned function, it seems to be well
settled that the disclosure should be
regarded as sufficient.
In short, the fact that the applied references disclose
bulky tissue sheets does not necessarily mean that such sheets
have an “Average Percent Void Area of about 63 or greater” as
recited in the appealed claims. The mere probability or
possibility that these prior art tissue sheets have such an
Average Percent Void Area is not sufficient to support the
examiner’s unduly speculative finding that they inherently
possess this characteristic.
Thus, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 23 through 30 as being anticipated by Klowak,
Sanford, Weldon, Smith, Hostetler or Ogden.
Nor shall we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 23 through 30 as being unpatentable over Klowak,
Sanford, Weldon, Smith, Hostetler or Ogden.
The examiner’s rationale in support of this rejection is
that “it would have been obvious to optimize the process
conditions of the prior art to achieve optimal balance between
strength and bulk as represented by the claimed APVA [Average
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007