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. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013