Appeal No. 2005-2620 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/852,712
folded, as recited in claim 16, states that the change in the shape of an object is
generally recognized as being within the level of skill in the art and absent any showing
of unexpected results does not patentably distinguish the claims. The examiner also
cites Wewers for teaching the square shape of a package.
In regard to the manner of folding of the tissues, the examiner relies on Figure 6
of Williams. The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to fold the
absorbent paper in the manner taught by Williams for the package of the APA to store
the absorbent paper in a compact manner.
We will not sustain this rejection. In our view, it would not have been obvious to
modify the tissue packet of APA so as to have a square rear and front face or to fold the
tissue packet of APA in the manner recited in claim 16.
Firstly, the examiner has failed to establish that it would have been obvious to
fold the tissue as recited in claim 16. Williams does not describe three fold lines and
two orthogonal fold lines which define sixteen equal areas within the tissue. Williams'
Figure 6 depicts three fold lines and three orthogonal fold lines which define 16 equal
areas within the tissue (See also Figure 3). In addition, Williams does not describe the
direction of folding of the panels so that the interior surface of the two outer panels is
folded in a outwardly manner with respect to the two inner panels, as recited in claim
16. Figure 6 of Williams does not, as asserted by the examiner describe a folding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007