Appeal 2007-0042
Application 09/746,880
in the art as thickeners, with their attendant benefits.2 Appellants have not
alleged or shown any criticality for selecting the claimed thickeners or
“decoupling polymers” from the list of conventional thickener additives
taught by Beerse.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5, 8-15, 20-29, 32-35, 40, 41, 43, 45-
47, and 49-56 which stand or fall with claim 1, under § 103(a) over Krzysik
in view of Beerse.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
sld/ls
KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
401 NORTH LAKE STREET
NEENAH, WI 54956
2 See the Decision in Appeal No. 2005-1186, page 6, first paragraph.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013