Appeal No. 2004-2247 Page 2
Application No. 09/835,701
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to a dry cleansing wipe. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A substantially dry cleansing product comprising:
(i) a water insoluble substrate; and
(ii) a cleansing composition impregnated onto the substrate comprising:
(a) at least one lathering surfactant;
(b) water; and
wherein a total of all lathering surfactants to water is present in a weight ratio
from about 1:2 to about 20:1, and the composition having a viscosity as
measured on a Haake CV 20 Rheometer with 30 mm profiled parallel plates
at 23/C ranging from about 100 to about 200,000 cps.
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:
Wagner et al. (Wagner) 5,951,991 Sep. 14, 1999
Albacarys et al. (Albacarys) 6,338,855 Jan. 15, 2002
(filed Apr. 22, 1999)
Claims 1 and 4-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Albacarys or Wagner.
Appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall together (Brief, p. 5). Appellants
group the claims as follows (Id.):
Group I - claims 1, 6 and 7
Group II - claim 4
Group III - claims 5 and 8
Group IV - claim 9
To the extent that the claim groups are argued separately, we consider them separately.
We affirm substantially for the reasons advanced by the Examiner. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007