Appeal No. 2006-0142
Application No. 10/247,782
with the examiner’s position made on pages 9-12 of the answer,
and incorporate the examiner’s statements made therein as our
own.
With specific regard to the grouping of claims 17-30, we
note that appellant relies upon the same arguments presented
with respect to claim 1, and therefore for the very same reasons
that we affirmed the rejection of claim 1, we also affirm the
rejection of claims 17-30.
With regard to method claims 31-40, we agree with the
examiner’s position that these claims are obvious over Floyd in
view of Hansen ‘326. We note that on page 24 of the brief,
appellant relies on the same arguments with respect to claims 1-
16, and therefore, for the same reasons, we affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of these claims as being obvious over Floyd in
view of Hansen ‘326.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-42 as being obvious over Floyd in
view of Hansen ‘326.
II. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection 14, 16, 27, 29, 38, and 40 as
being obvious over Floyd in view of Hansen ‘326 and further
in view of Hansen ‘364
We observe that on pages 27-29 of the brief, appellant
relies on the same arguments relied upon with respect to the
rejections of claims 1-42. That is, appellant argues that Floyd
in view of Hansen does not suggest adding an agent having
hydrogen bonding functionality to the polysaccharide film of
Floyd, and Floyd in view of Hansen does not result in a fiber
treatment composition being distributed “within” the wet laid
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007