Appeal No. 2006-0111
Application 09/900,746
Deacon as discussed above, additionally relying on Win for the
teaching of a web substrate for a pre-moistened wet wipe that
comprises multiple plies for strength (id.). Appellants’ arguments
concerning this rejection are merely a restatement of their previous
arguments (Brief, page 14; Reply Brief, page 4). Accordingly, for
reasons stated above and adopting the findings and conclusion of law
on page 9 of the Answer, we determine that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including the due
consideration of appellants’ arguments, we determine that the
preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under section 103(a)
over Deacon in view of Win.
C. The Rejection over Perini in view of Deacon
With regard to the rejection of claims 13 and 15 under section
103(a) over Perini in view of Deacon (Answer, page 6), we have
determined that Perini teaches away from the breaking of a wet web
as discussed above. However, we have also determined above that
Deacon alone renders the subject matter of claim 1 on appeal prima
facie obvious. Since the examiner has relied on Deacon for all of
the findings regarding the limitations of claims 13 and 15,
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007