Appeal No. 2006-0130
Application 10/161,166
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
The principal issue in this appeal as framed by appellants is whether the combined
teachings of the references as applied would have led one of ordinary skill in this art to the
second step of “weakening the elongated web of material along a plurality of lines formed in the
length direction of the web of material to form a plurality of panels joined to adjacent panels
along the plurality of lines,” and the subsequent fourth step of “cutting the plurality of panels to
form at least two clips, each clip having a plurality of sheets wherein every sheet within the clip
is joined to any adjacent sheet within the clip by a weakened line” specified for the claimed
process encompassed by independent claim 10; and to the same second step and the subsequent
third step of “folding the plurality of panels together to form a . . . ribbon of panels,” and the
latter part of the fifth step “wherein each panel within each ribbon of panels is joined to any
adjacent panel within the ribbon of panels by a weakened line” specified for the claimed process
encompassed by independent claim 18.
Appellants submit that Clancy would not have taught “weakening the towelette . . . but
simply folds the material into an accordion fold and cuts it to length,” and that Craig “slits the
individual sheets,” pointing out that Clancy “is concerned with packaging an individual wipe in
an envelope” (brief, pages 3-4, original emphasis deleted; see also page 5). Appellants further
submit that there is no motivation to combine Mertens with Clancy and Craig, pointing out that
Mertens would have taught perforations for separating sheets while Clancy would have taught
“an individual towelette” and the “sheets of Craig are already slit” (id., pages 5-6; original
emphasis deleted). The examiner responds that appellants refer “to ‘weakened line’ as being a
perforated lines, a zone of frangibility, score lines or crush cutting,” and that “[i]t is deemed that
a longitudinal folded web ‘becomes weak’ along several longitudinal fold lines,” pointing to
Clancy FIGs. 1 and 4 wherein “the web 10 is gradually folded into longitudinal panels having
weaker fold lines,” thus meeting the subject limitations of claims 10 and 18 (answer, pages 3-5).
Appellants reply that they “define a weakened line at page 5, line 35” (reply brief, page 2) as
found by the examiner, and submit that “[f]olding of the elongated web is not defined as a
process producing weakened lines,” contending that “folding a web material does not inherently
produce a weakened line or make the web material weaker along the fold line than the remaining
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007