Appeal 2007-3167
Application 10/320,295
1 With respect to the rejection of claims 23-27 Appellant contends
2 (Br. 7) that "[c]laims 23 and 283 distinguish over Kyoshi by further limiting
3 the stiff sheet material to that made entirely of a plastics material," and that
4 in Kiyoshi, the stiffener is a laminated board of paper, without transparency
5 except for an opening through which tissues may be dispensed. The
6 Examiner contends (Answer 4) that Kiyoshi discloses the claim limitations
7 except for the stiffening member being formed entirely of a plastics material
8 and the pile of wet tissue being a bar of soap. The Examiner relies upon
9 Will for a teaching of the object being a bar of soap, and relies upon
10 Nakamura for a teaching of the stiffener being made entirely of plastics.
11 We affirm.
12 ISSUE
13 With regard to the rejection of claims 28-32, the issue is whether
14 Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in holding that the teachings
15 and suggestions of Nakamura and Will would have suggested to an artisan
16 the invention of claims 28-32. The issue turns on whether the prior art
17 would have suggested replacing the confectionary of Nakamura with a bar of
18 soap as disclosed by Will.
19 With respect to claims 23-27 the issue is whether Appellant has
20 shown that the Examiner erred in holding that the combined teachings of
21 Kiyoshi, Nakamura, and will would have suggested the language of claims
22 23-27.
23
3 Appellant's reference to Kiyoshi is unclear as Kiyoshi has not been applied
to claim 28.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013