Appeal 2007-1179
Application 10/399,984
Appellant contends, with regard to claims 15 and 28, that the
uniformly shaped, detachable rectangular blocks of tape taught by Sizemore
are clearly not shaped for placement on different portions of the human face
as required by these claims (Br. 11).
The Examiner contends that Sizemore explicitly teaches detachable
components of differing shapes, and also teaches in general that the tape can
be torn to produce different sized strips to fit a given application (Answer
7-8).
The Examiner contends that there is a clear implicit motivation to
make detachable shapes, other than different shaped rectangles, in order to
fit different parts of the human face, and such an implicit motivation is
proper in an obviousness rejection (Answer 8-9, citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner contends, with regard to claims 15 and 28, that Gueret
clearly teaches different size pieces should be used for different portions of
the human face (Answer 9).
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) does Sizemore disclose, teach, or suggest detachable
components of differing shapes for application to human skin?; (2) has the
Examiner presented an explicit analysis of the reasons for combining the
elements or components of Gueret, Dillon, and Sizemore?; and (3) do the
applied prior art references disclose, teach, or suggest different size pieces of
the pack should be used for different portions of the human face?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013