Appeal No. 2005-2458 2
Application No. 10/003,900
INTRODUCTION
The Examiner rejects all the pending claims, i.e., claims 1-20, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon U.S. Patent
5,965,235 issued to McGuire et al. (McGuire). McGuire describes prior work done
within Procter & Gamble, the real party in interest in this appeal, by an inventive entity
1
overlapping that of the application reviewed here.
Appellants state that the claims do not stand of fall together and groups claims 3-
6 separately from claims 1, 2, and 7-20. To the extent that claims 3-6 are argued
separately in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8), the rule in force at the time the
2
Brief was filed, we consider them separately. Otherwise, we select claim 1 to
represent the issues on appeal.
We affirm and in so doing we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law
presented by the Examiner in the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
We first focus our attention on claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a storage wrap
material. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1The U.S. Patent issued on October 12, 1999, more than one year before the filing date of the
application being reviewed and, therefore, qualifies as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2Note that effective Septem ber 13, 2004, 37 CFR § 1.192 has been replaced by 37 CFR §
41.37(c)(69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sept. 7, 2004)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007