Appeal No. 2006-1115
Application No. 10/397,748
As correctly explained by the examiner, the tissue sheet of
Roussel and Burt respectively has two or more texture patterns
and an optical interference pattern of the type required by
appealed independent claim 13. The appellants’ contrary view is
clearly erroneous. Moreover, this erroneous viewpoint is in no
way supported by the two transparencies submitted in the evidence
appendix of the appellants’ brief. In particular, these
transparencies display the same figures of Burt’s drawing and
thus overlaying one on the other cannot evince lack of an
interference pattern as urged by appellants. This is because
overlaying the sheets merely results in a comparison of the same
texture patterns rather than a comparison of two different
patterns within a given figure which interact to form an optical
interference pattern in the manner detailed by the examiner.
Since the one and only argument advanced by the appellants
for each of the rejections before us concerns the erroneous
distinction discussed above, it would be appropriate, for this
reason alone, to sustain each of these rejections. However,
these rejections are additionally sustainable because the
appellants’ argument, aside from being erroneous, is simply
irrelevant to the patentability issue before us.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007