Appeal 2007-0876
Application 10/057,346
(2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
To summarize, because McAtee suggests that products meeting the
structural limitations in claims 1 and 7 would have been useful as personal
cleansing articles, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill
would have considered those claims to be obvious.
Appellant argues that McAtee does not teach or suggest the three
planar members recited in claim 1, including an intermediate member having
apertures and an antibacterial agent (Br. 7-8).1 Similarly, Appellant argues
that McAtee does not teach or suggest the two planar members recited in
claim 7, including a lower member having apertures and an antibacterial
agent (id. at 10).
We disagree. For the reasons discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner that McAtee would have suggested the limitations of claims 1 and
7 to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the upper planar member, Appellant contends that
“[t]here is no substantially planar upper member in figure 5A.”
We note that the upper layer of the article shown in Figure 5A has
some slight undulations in it. However, McAtee states that “[a]s shown in
FIG. 5A, the wiping article is generally flat prior to wetting” (McAtee col. 9,
ll. 29-30). We agree with the Examiner that a generally flat article meets the
limitations in claims 1 and 7 requiring an upper planar shaped member.
Appellant contends that McAtee discloses that when two or more
layers are used to prepare the disclosed article, “[t]he apertures do not
1 Appeal Brief filed May 11, 2006.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013