Appeal 2006-2144
Application 10/001,158
35. In fact, as correctly pointed out by the Appellants (Reply Brief3 1-2),
Hansenoehrl specifically teaches that to form a disposable cleansing product,
the lathering surfactant should be added onto or impregnated into a substrate
as exactly taught by McAtee. See page 33.
Under these circumstances, we are constrained to agree with the
Appellants that the Examiner, on this record, has not demonstrated that the
collective teachings of McAtee and Hansenoehrl would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention within meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
the claims on appeal under § 103.
V. CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1 through 36 is reversed.
REVERSED
CKP/TF
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
P.O. BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
3 We refer to the Response to Examiner’s Supplemental Answer dated July
20, 2005 as the Reply Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4
Last modified: November 3, 2007