Appeal No. 2006-0269
Application No. 10/166,154
obviousness on the evidence before us. The examiner has provided a reason
based on the evidence of record, as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to substitute the meltblown or spun-bonded sheet with the
meltblown/spun-bonded web layers to improve the strength of the cleansing
pouch.
Appellants respond, arguing generally that the cited references fail to
teach the claimed subject matter, but fail to rebut the examiner’s specific
arguments and indicated motivation to combine the cited references. In view of
the above, appellants have failed to rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness and the rejection of claim 3 for obviousness is affirmed.
3. Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 8 -11 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Pat.
No. 6,610,311 B2 taken with Brennan and Thaman.
It is the position of the examiner that claim 1 “in the ‘311 patent claims a
packaged cosmetic article comprising a pouch formed of walls, with at least one of the
walls being water permeable, the pouch being sealed along its perimeter; and an
effervescent cleanser composition in the form of an anhydrous dry solid being
positioned in the pouch …” Answer, page 6.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007