Appeal 2006-2867
Application 10/771,969
OPINION
A. Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejections
Appellants do not contest the merits of either rejection based on
obviousness-type double patenting (Br. 9). Therefore, we summarily affirm
both rejections for the reasons stated in the Answer.
B. Rejections based on § 103(a)
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Appellants admit that wet wipes were known in this art to be used
in sheet form, or in spiral form pulled from the center of a hollow
coreless roll that has perforated sheets (Specification 1:22-28;
Answer 3);
(2) Appellants define “wet wipes” as “any wipe, tissue or sheet …
that is wet or moist or becomes wet during use or prior to use”
(Specification 2:3-5; Answer 5);
(3) Gordon discloses wet-like cleansing wipes in a final product roll
where the wetting composition comprises at least about 1 weight
percent of an inorganic salt (col. 14, ll. 1-24; col. 23, Example III
(Table III); Figure 2, element 128; Answer 3);
(4) Nissing discloses providing transverse grooves in single or multi-
ply wet wipe material to aid in cleaning surfaces (Figure 5B; col.
3, ll. 40-51; Answer 3); and
(5) Nissing teaches that texture, thickness, and bulk volume per unit
weight are desirable features in wet wipe articles (col. 1, ll. 21-
33).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013