Appeal 2006-2791
Application 09/729,626
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Greenway (Br. 3; Supp. Br. 1).1 This is the
only rejection presented and addressed in the Answer (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that Greenway does not suggest any modifications
that would provide cleaning sheets with the claimed Average Height
Differential and channel widths, nor does the reference suggest any
correlation between softness and hand-feel with these claimed properties
(Br. 5-6).
Appellants contend that there is no reasonable expectation of success
in Greenway, since rounding the edges of the apertures in the reference
would not result in a cleaning sheet having the claimed channel width or
Average Height Differential (Br. 6, 8). Appellants contend that Fig. 6B of
Greenway shows a thickness of the screen which is 0.030 inches (0.762
mm), far below the claimed Average Height Differential value (Br. 9).
The Examiner contends that Greenway discloses a fabric that has a
pattern textile-like aesthetic finish, with an array of dense nodes connected
by a diamond-shaped pattern of interstitial fibers, and teaches that the degree
of entanglement and pattern produced are result-effective variables related to
1 As clarified in the “Supplemental Appeal Brief” dated Aug. 11, 2007,
Appellants state that claims 1, 49, and 62 are the only claims on appeal and
that all dependent claims thereon are cancelled (Supp. Br. 1, purporting to
cancel claims 2-3, 11-18, 21-25, 31-34, 37, 38, 47, 48, 50-61, and 63-72).
Since this amendment has not been formally presented nor entered by the
Examiner, we consider all the above dependent claims to be still pending in
this application. However, we limit our review to the only claims on appeal,
i.e., claims 1, 49, and 62. Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction
of the Examiner, the Examiner should consider Appellants’ statement
cancelling the dependent claims and indicate if this amendment should be
entered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013