Appeal 2007-0876
Application 10/057,346
reasoned from this disclosure that a structure having two outer layers and an
intermediate layer, as recited in claim 1, would have been obvious in view of
McAtee’s disclosure.
McAtee also discloses that “[t]he substrates used to form the personal
cleansing articles . . . must contain apertures or openings in the cleansing
surface of the substrate” (id. at col. 6, ll. 25-27), and that “[w]hen two or
more plies or layers are used to form the water-insoluble substrate, apertures
may or may not be placed in all of the plies or layers” (id. at col. 6,
ll. 54-57). By disclosing that all of the layers may contain apertures,
McAtee therefore meets the limitation in claims 1 and 7, that the
intermediate and bottom layers comprise apertures.
McAtee lists “cosmetic biocides” as optional ingredients (id. at col.
30, ll. 11-27), and further states that “[t]he surfactant . . . and any optional
ingredients can be added onto . . . either layer . . . by any means known to
those skilled in the art: for example by spraying, laser printing, splashing,
dipping, soaking, or coating” (id. at col. 31, ll. 12-17). McAtee also teaches
that the layer(s) can be treated before they are joined together (id. at col. 30,
l. 61 to col. 31, l. 17).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have
reasoned from this disclosure that a biocide would be useful when placed on
the top of an intermediate layer in a three-layered article, as recited in claim
1, and on the top of the bottom layer of a two-layered article, as recited in
claim 7. We therefore also agree that the antibacterial member recited in
claims 1 and 7 would have been obvious at the time the invention was made.
See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013