Appeal No. 2004-1206
Application No. 09/826,473
arguments for claims 24 and 25 (Brief, page 9), we agree with the
examiner that Gerstner discloses that the paperboard substrate is
either not pretreated and left unbleached or the substrate is
solid bleached and thus a white wood pulp fiber (Answer, page 5;
Gerstner, col. 3, ll. 25-33).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the examiner’s
rejection of claims 16 and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Gerstner.
C. The Rejections under § 103(a)
We adopt the examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law as stated in the Answer at pages 6-8, 11-12 and 15-16,
regarding the rejections based on section 103(a) over Gerstner in
view of Akao and Gerstner in view of Agostini. Appellants merely
repeat their arguments with respect to Gerstner as discussed
above and state that Akao and Agostini do not remedy the
deficiencies in this primary reference (Brief, pages 6 and 10).
With regard to appellants’ argument concerning the motivation to
combine Gerstner and Agostini (Brief, page 10), we adopt the
examiner’s comments from pages 15-16 of the Answer.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007