Appeal 2006-2867
Application 10/771,969
In view of our claim construction as discussed above, we determine
that Gordon discloses a roll of “wet wipes” having an unspecified diameter
and size but including a wetting composition comprising at least about 1
weight percent of inorganic salt, e.g., sodium chloride (see factual finding
(3) above). Use of wet wipes in spiral form with perforations was
admittedly well known in this art (see factual finding (1) above).
Gordon is silent regarding the size of the roll, the width of the wet
wipes, and the diameter of the roll, as specified in claim 81 on appeal
(Answer 3 and 5). However, we determine that the unspecified diameter of
the finished product roll 128 disclosed by Gordon (see Figure 2) would have
been well within the ordinary skill in this art, depending on the desired
number of wet wipes and thickness of each wipe. Nissing teaches that such
parameters are “desirable features” of wet wipes, including the texture,
thickness, and bulk (volume per unit weight) (see factual finding (5) above).
Accordingly, we determine that finding the optimum of such result-effective
variables would have been well within the ordinary skill in this art, absent
any showing of the criticality of the claimed values. We note that
Appellants have not alleged, much less shown, any unexpected results for
the claimed values of these parameters. See Woodruff, supra; Aller, supra.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore, we affirm both
grounds of rejection in this appeal based on § 103(a).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013