Appeal No. 2006-1328
Application No. 10/379,307
neither Tiegler nor Prueher describes the disclosed articles as a
dryer sheet enhancer. Nor is it significant, as urged by
appellant, that Tiegler is directed to a bottle support and
Prueher is directed to a lid for a drinking container. We
subscribe to the examiner’s rationale that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood that Prueher’s teaching of using
round apertures at the end of slits in flexible members would
translate to the slits of Tiegler’s flexible member for
preventing tears therein. In our view, Prueher establishes the
obviousness of utilizing an aperture at the end of an incision or
slit in flexible members, in general, for the purpose of
preventing tears in the flexible member. We are satisfied that
one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the principle
underlining the use of an aperture as applicable to all such
flexible members, whether they are used as a bottle support, a
container lid or a dryer sheet enhancer.
Concerning separately argued claim 5, which recites that the
sheet enhancer is “generally dish-like” in shape, we agree with
the examiner that the generally round shape of Tiegler’s flexible
member meets the requirement of being generally dish-like.
Regarding claim 8, appellant maintains that “if the slits in
the flexible sheet as taught by Tiegler et al. were terminated
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007