Ex Parte Tewes-Schwarzer - Page 2


                   Appeal 2007-1179                                                                                                 
                   Application 10/399,984                                                                                           
                   support formed of an absorbent material, with first and second                                                   
                   subcomponents of the sheet-like material having different shapes but are                                         
                   detachably connected to each other (Br. 3).1  Appellant also claims a human                                      
                   skin care set containing the pack (claim 23), a process for the production of                                    
                   the pack (claims 24-25), and a method for providing cosmetic treatment                                           
                   using the pack (claims 26-27) (Br. 3).  Claim 14 is representative of the                                        
                   invention and is reproduced below:                                                                               
                           14. A pack comprising a flexible sheet-like support formed of an                                         
                   absorbent material for placement on a human body surface, wherein the                                            
                   sheet-like support includes at least one weakened line that subdivides the                                       
                   sheet-like support into at least a first subcomponent and a second                                               
                   subcomponent that are detachably connected to each other, and wherein the                                        
                   shape of the first subcomponent is different than the shape of the second                                        
                   subcomponent.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                   
                           The Examiner has relied on the following prior art references as                                         
                   evidence of unpatentability:                                                                                     
                   Sizemore                             US 3,143,208                        Aug. 04, 1964                           
                   Suwelack (‘622)                  DE 40 28 622 A1                  Mar. 12, 1992                                  
                   (as translated)                                                                                                  
                   Suwelack (‘329)                  DE 43 28 329 A1                  Mar. 03, 1994                                  
                   (as translated)                                                                                                  
                   Dillon                                  US 5,656,279                        Aug. 12, 1997                        
                   Shimizu                               US 2001/0016205 A1           Aug. 23, 2001                                 
                   Gueret                                  US 6,419,935 B1                  Jul. 16, 2002                           
                                                    ISSUES ON APPEAL                                                                
                           Claims 14-19, 22-24, 26-28, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                        

                                                                                                                                   
                   1 We refer to and cite from Appellant’s “Supplemental Appeal Brief” dated                                        
                   July 31, 2006.                                                                                                   
                                                                 2                                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013