Appeal No. 2006-1328
Application No. 10/379,307
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability. However, we find that the examiner’s
rejections are well-founded and supported by the prior art
evidence relied upon. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in
the answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of
claims 1-9 over Tiegler in view of Prueher. There is no dispute
that Tiegler, like appellant, discloses a flexible member having
slits or incisions at predetermined locations of the member.
While Tiegler does not teach that the flexible member can be used
to receive and secure a dryer sheet, we fully concur with the
examiner that the member of Tiegler is fully capable of doing so.
As explained by the examiner, the preamble of the appealed claims
is merely a statement of intended use which does not serve to
structurally distinguish the claimed article from the article
disclosed by Tiegler.
As appreciated by the examiner, the flexible member of
Tiegler does not have the claimed aperture at the terminal end of
the incision. However, we agree with the examiner that Prueher
establishes the obviousness of doing so for the purpose of
preventing tearing of the member. Again, it is of no moment that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007