Appeal No. 2004-0694
Application 09/839,741
patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102, pointing out where all of the
specific limitations recited in the rejected claims are found in
the prior art relied upon in the rejection.” In the present
case, the examiner has made little or no effort to comply with
this requirement by explaining exactly how the wrapper and pouch
combination (34, 53) pointed to in Fisher ‘230 specifically
functions to maintain the flaps (28) in the folded, topsheet
facing relationship and how such combination of elements (34, 53)
is “releasably affixed to said flaps.” Like appellants, we find
no embodiment in Fisher ‘230 where an enclosed pouch containing a
cleansing wipe article both maintains the flaps (28) in the
folded, topsheet facing relationship and is releasably affixed to
said flaps. Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not
made out a prima facie case of anticipation based on Fisher ‘230.
For that reason, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 6, 8, 11 through 13, 16 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fisher ‘230.
In reaching our conclusion above vis-a-vis the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6, 8, 11 through 13, 16 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we understand the requirements in
appellants’ independent claims 1 and 11 regarding “an enclosed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007