Appeal 2006-2867
Application 10/771,969
Appellants also contend that, contrary to the Examiner’s
interpretation, the Specification does not convey that a “wet wipe” can be
dry (Reply Br. 3).
Appellants contend that no reference suggests the claim dimensions,
and that the Examiner’s assertion that “background statements” qualify as
prior art is contrary to law (Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner contends that the term “wet wipe,” as admitted by
Appellants, includes both wipes that contain a wet composition before use
and wipes that become wet during use (Answer 5).
The Examiner also contends that the size and dimensions of the wet
wipes would have been well within the ordinary skill in this art (Answer 3
and 5).
Accordingly, the issues in this appeal are as follows: (1) does the
claimed term “wet wipes” include both wipes wet with a composition before
use and wipes that become wet during use?; and (2) are the length of the roll,
width of the wipes, form of the wipes (spiral form), and diameter of the roll
known variables to those of ordinary skill in the wet wipes art?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM all rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013