Appeal No. 2006-0609
Application No. 10/036,862
skill of the art”); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”). This is
especially true in this situation since Marino at column 1, lines
59-60, in reference to a device for dispensing moist and dry
wipes, intimates that the preference for dry and/or moist tissues
is dependent on users.
The appellants appear to argue that the wet/dry wiping
recited in claims 2 through 4 imparts unexpected results, thereby
rebutting any inference of obviousness. See the Brief, pages 12-
15. In support of their argument, the appellants refer to Table
A at page 15 of the specification. See the Brief, page 14.
The appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed
subject matter imparts unexpected results. In re Klosak, 455
F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972); see also In re
Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228, 149 USPQ 692, 697 (CCPA 1966)(“It [is].
incumbent upon appellants to submit clear and convincing evidence
to support their allegation of unexpected property”). However,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007