Ex Parte Rivera et al - Page 3

               Appeal 2006-2867                                                                            
               Application 10/771,969                                                                      

                                          ISSUES ON APPEAL                                                 
                      Claims 81-87, 111-114, 119, and 120 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
               § 103(a) as unpatentable over the APA in view of Gordon (Answer 3).                         
                      Claims 90-98, 115-118, 121, and 122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
               § 103(a) as unpatentable over the APA in view of Gordon and Nissing                         
               (Answer 3).                                                                                 
                      Claims 81-87, 111-114, 119, and 120 stand provisionally rejected                     
               under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as               
               unpatentable over claim 41 of copending Application No. 10/664,342                          
               (Answer 4).                                                                                 
                      Claims 90-98, 115-118, 121, and 122 stand provisionally rejected                     
               under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting                  
               over claim 41 of copending Application No. 10/664,342 in view of Nissing                    
               (Answer 4).1                                                                                
                      Appellants contend that Gordon does not disclose a roll of wet wipes,                
               actually teaching away from wet wipes by disclosing wipes that are not wet                  
               until an emulsion is ruptured during use (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-3).                          
                      Appellants contend that Gordon does not disclose or suggest any                      
               antibacterial benefit associated with his encapsulated wetting composition                  
               (Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3).                                                                     



                                                                                                          
               1 According to Office records, we note that Application No. 10/664,342 has                  
               issued as U. S. Patent No. 7,179,502 on Feb. 20, 2007.  Therefore, these two                
               “provisional” rejections are considered as regular obviousness-type double                  
               patenting rejections.                                                                       
                                                    3                                                      

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013