Appeal No. 2006-0111
Application 09/900,746
traditionally made in processes in which the larger web of wipes are
initially made and then these larger webs are converted into smaller
rolls or sheets that can be placed in a dispenser. Appellants’ 2
admitted prior art includes the formation of smaller rolls from a
larger roll when the wipes or web material is wet, since the
specification discloses that these smaller rolls are ready for a
dispenser.
Appellants argue that claims 1 and 18 recite providing a web of
material where the web travels at a speed of at least 60 meters per
minute and Deacon fails to teach or suggest this web speed (Brief,
page 12). Appellants further argue that the examiner has failed to
address the fact that Deacon does not teach how the speed of the web
might be maximized, and the prior art gives no indication of which
parameters are critical or any direction as to which of the possible
choices are likely to be successful (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Deacon teaches a
continuous process for production of a wet wipe where the substrate
2It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicant’s
specification may be used in determining the patentability of a
claimed invention (In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ
607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)); and that consideration of the prior art
cited by the examiner may include consideration of the admitted
prior art found in an applicant’s specification (In re Davis, 305
F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962); cf., In re Hedges,
783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007