Ex Parte Grippo - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-1328                                                        
          Application No. 10/379,307                                                  

                    b)   at least one incision, having a predetermined                
               length, formed through said flexible member at a                       
               predetermined location for receiving a portion of a dryer              
               sheet and securing such dryer sheet therein; and                       
                    c)   an aperture, having a second predetermined shape,            
               formed through said flexible member at each terminal end of            
               said at least one incision.                                            
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Tiegler et al. (Tiegler)        2,264,489           Dec.  2, 1941           
          Prueher                         4,245,752           Jan. 20, 1981           
          Kingry et al. (Kingry)          6,305,046           Oct. 23, 2001           
          Mattia et al. (Mattia)        2003/0207785 A1       Nov.  6, 2003           
               Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a dryer sheet             
          enhancer which secures a dryer sheet that is used in a clothes              
          dryer.  The enhancer is a flexible member having at least one               
          incision for receiving and securing a portion of the dryer sheet.           
          Also, an aperture is formed through the flexible member at the              
          terminal end of the incision.                                               
               Appealed claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)            
          as being unpatentable over Tiegler in view of Prueher.  Claims 1-           
          18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated             
          by Mattia.                                                                  
               Appellant presents separate arguments for claims 2, 5, 6, 8            
          and 17.  Accordingly, claims 3, 4, 7, 9-16 and 18 stand or fall             
          together with claim 1.                                                      
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007