Appeal No. 2006-0269
Application No. 10/166,154
The examiner acknowledges that Charambura does not disclose the specific type
of first and second substrates as claimed but argues that Brennan and Thaman teach
that spunlaced sheets and high loft sheets are used in the personal care cleansing.
Answer, page 7.
In rebuttal, the appellants argue
“The focus of the presently claimed invention is the construction materials and
arrangement of those materials in forming a pouch. Charambura et al. is silent with
respect to any of these construction materials or their respective arrangement in forming
walls of the pouch. This reference teaches nothing more than Farrell regarding walls of
the pouch. Therefore, Charambura and Farrell separately or in combination with the
other cited references do not render the instant invention obvious.” Brief, page 11.
Appellants also argue that Charambura and Farrell fail to teach the claimed subject
matter, but in doing so, they fail to address and rebut the examiner’s arguments which
include reference to Brennan and Thaman, and the indicated motivation to combine the
cited references.
In view of the above, appellants have failed to convincingly rebut the
examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness and the rejection of claim 3 for
obviousness is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007