Appeal No. 2006-0269
Application No. 10/166,154
Appellants respond, attacking each of the cited references individually. For
example, Appellants argue (Brief, pages 7-8)
Brennan, was cited for teaching disposable baby wipes made with
spunlaced sheets. These sheets were indicated as having superior
inherent softness. Unlike the claimed invention, Brennan discloses no
cleansing compositions, describes no pouches or a sachet, and includes
no powdered materials within the baby wipes. Indeed, the systems of
Brennan are pre-moistened (wet) in contrast to the nearly dry
compositions of the present invention. Finally, the Examiner has herself
admitted that neither Farrell nor Brennan teach high loft sheets. These
references also do not teach high loft sheets bonded to a non-woven
sheet.
Thaman discloses a medicated pad of dual texture. One side is
high loft carded non-woven bonded to an air-laid non-woven. By contrast
to the present invention, the Thaman pad has only two layers. Appellant
requires at least three layers. Furthermore, Thaman fully bonds the high
loft to the air-laid non-woven; there is no area described therebetween to
house any cleansing compositions. Appellant requires an area for housing
a composition between the first substrate (high Ioft non-woven layers) and
second substrate (spun lace or carded non-woven material). Further it is
to be noted that Thaman does not disclose a spun lace or a
carded/chemically bonded non-woven material.
In summary, Appellants argue “[t]he Examiner has cobbled together three
references in an attempt to assemble all of appellant's claim elements.” Brief, page 8.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Appellants argue each of the
references individually and do not acknowledge the relevance of each of their teachings
to one of ordinary skill in the art when taken in combination. It is well settled that “[n]on-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.@ In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test of
obviousness is Awhether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007