Appeal No. 2006-0142
Application No. 10/247,782
To the extent that any one claim is specifically argued
regarding patentability, we consider such claim in this appeal.
See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(effective September 13, 2004; 69
Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21
(September 7, 2004)).
OPINION
I. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-42 as being obvious
over Floyd in view of Hansen ‘326
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3-6 of the answer. The examiner states that Floyd
discloses the claimed invention, but does not mention “the
addition of at least one agent, having hydrogen bonding
functionality, to the fiber treatment composition.” The
examiner relies upon Hansen for teaching that it is known in the
art to add at least one agent having hydrogen bonding
functionality to a wet-laid fiber sheet to help keep super-
absorbent material from dislodging from the cellulosic material.
Answer, page 3.
Beginning on page 10 of the brief, appellant argues that
the rejection does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Appellant argues that there is no teaching in
Floyd or Hansen that would have motivated one skilled in the art
to add an agent having hydrogen bonding functionality to the
polysaccharide films of Floyd.
On page 11 of the brief, appellant argues that Floyd does
not suggest that there is a need to add an additional material
to his polysaccharide films in order to help keep super-
absorbent particles from dislodging from the cellulosic
material. Appellant refers to column 4, beginning at line 24 of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007