Appeal 2007-0343
Application 09/745,702
advantages afforded thereby would appear to be the product of ordinary skill
and common sense rather than innovation.
In light of the above, Appellants' arguments do not demonstrate the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 as unpatentable over Richards in view
of Hamilton and Meissner. The rejection is sustained.
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 6-10 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
hh
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION - WEST BLDG.
WINTON HILL BUSINESS CENTER - BOX 412
6250 CENTER HILL AVENUE
CINCINNATI, OH 45224
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013