Appeal No. 2005-2620 Παγε 6
Application No. 09/852,712
motivation to combine the teachings of the APA and the Wewers reference. This the
examiner has not done. There is simply nothing on this record which would have
motivated the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of APA with Wewers.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 16
and claims 17 to 22 dependent therefrom.
Claims 30 and 31 recite that the wrapper and tissue stack defining the packet
have a square front face and rear face. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection as it
is directed to claims 30 and 31 because as we stated above we find that it would not
have been obvious to modify APA so as to have a square front face and rear face. In
addition, claims 30 and 31 recite that there are three fold lines and two fold lines which
define sixteen areas which we stated above is not described in Williams. Therefore, this
is an additional reason for not sustaining this rejection. Further, claims 30 and 31 recite
that the three fold lines form an M shape when viewed from an end of the tissue. As we
stated above, Figure 6 of Williams does not depict a folding method but rather two
panels which form the tissue panel. Therefore, Williams does not describe the M shape
and thus this is a further reason for not sustaining the rejection.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 16 to 22 and 30 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Focke or Rugenstein in view of Wewers
and William. The examiner relies on Focke or Rugenstein for describing the subject
matter of the claims except that neither Focke nor Rugenstein describes a tissue packet
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007