Appeal No. 2006-0130
Application 10/161,166
claimed processes encompassed by claims 1 and 18 and the process of Clancy is also not shown
or suggested by Craig and/or by Mertens. In this respect, we find that Craig would have
disclosed that clips of interfolded individual, separated sheets can be bonded together to form a
stack that can be packaged in a container (e.g., cols. 1, l. 11, to col. 4, l. 25; FIGs. 1, 2 and 4),
without teaching or suggestion of joining the sheets by weakened lines. We further find that
Mertens would have disclosed that perforations can be used as weakened lines to separate sheets
from fan folded material, but this disclosure alone would not have provides the necessary
teachings or motivation to modify Clancy alone or as combined with Craig. This is because both
Clancy and Craig would have taught individual, separated sheets.
Accordingly, on this record, we determine that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness over the combined teachings of Clancy and Craig and over the
combined teachings of Clancy, Craig and Mertens.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007