Appeal 2007-0486
Application 10/441,484
understood to be disclosed as an optional layer to be added for comfort; not
as a required layer.
We have no doubt that the ridged structured layer of Hoffman is
capable of being grasped with a user’s hand and fingers and is maneuverable
for use as a cleaning towel even though the device is ultimately formed in
the shape of a mitt. In this regard, the location and relative size of the ridges
and panels of appealed claims 11 and 12 are not limited by the recitation of
specific numerical dimensions and/or a specific geometric profile.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s separate anticipation
rejections over Eng and Hoffman as to rejected claims 11 and 12.
However, our disposition of the Examiner’s separate anticipation
rejections over Eng and Hoffman as to rejected claim 13 is another matter.
This is because rejected claim 13 requires that a seam is affixed about 0.25
to 0.5 inches from an edge of a fold in forming a protrusive ridge.
Appellant mentions this claim feature several times throughout the
Brief and Reply Brief in the arguments presented (see, e.g., Br. 7, Reply Br.
12).4 Our review of Eng and Hoffman reveals no express description of a
seam being formed the claimed distance from a fold in forming a ridge. Nor
has the Examiner explained how that feature is inherently disclosed in these
4 We recognize that Appellant also seems to have referred to each of Eng
and Hoffman as disclosing the claimed seam offset distance from the edge of
the fold (see, e.g., Br. 7 and 11). However, these references to Eng and
Hoffman by Appellant are at odds with the descriptions found in these
references and other statements made in the Briefs, at least as to Eng.
Accordingly, like the Examiner, we do not refer to and rely on these
statements as admissions of fact in considering the rejections before us.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013