Appeal No. 2006-0111
Application 09/900,746
ensure that the changeover zone remains dry” (page 9, l. 11).
Therefore, upon consideration of Perini as a whole, we determine
that this reference teaches away from the claimed subject matter.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of Perini. Therefore we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-
48 under section 103(a) over Perini.
With regard to the rejection of claim 20 under section 103(a)
over Perini in view of Win (Answer, page 9), we note that Win was
applied by the examiner to show a web substrate for a pre-moistened
wet wipe comprising multiple plies for strength (id.). Accordingly,
Win does not remedy the deficiencies of Perini as discussed above.
Therefore we also cannot sustain the rejection of claim 20 under
section 103(a) over Perini in view of Win.
B. The Rejections over Deacon and Deacon in view of Win
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19 and 21-30
under section 103(a) over Deacon (Answer, page 7), the examiner
finds that Deacon teaches a method of impregnating a dry web
substrate with a liquid cleaning composition, passing the wet web
through a perforator and a slitter, and winding the wet web in the
form of a coreless roll (id.). The examiner construes the claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007