Appeal No. 2006-0269
Application No. 10/166,154
analysis. Upon consideration of both the “scope and content of the prior art” and
“level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” aspects of the Graham test, we find the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness on the evidence
before use. Moreover, we do not find the appellants have convincingly rebutted
the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1. Claims
2, and 6-11 fall with claim 1.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Farrell, Brennan, and Thaman as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-11 as above, and further
in view of Maddern.
The primary combination of references is discussed above. According to the
examiner the “combined references fail to teach the recited non-woven substrates
recited in instant claim 3.” Answer, page 5. Maddern discloses that, “for a suitable
cleansing material, one or more meltblown layers supported by spun-bonded web may
be used, and that such substrates are preferred for the strength of a spun-bonded web
and abrasiveness of the meltblown layer. See col. 4, lines 4 - 9.” Id.
The examiner concludes (Answer, page 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to have modified the article of the combined
references by substituting the meltblown or spun-bonded sheet with the
meltblown/spun-bonded web layers, as motivated by Maddern, because of
the expectation of successfully improving the strength of the cleansing
pouch.
Again we find the examiner has established a prima facie case of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007