Ex Parte Tewes-Schwarzer - Page 5


                   Appeal 2007-1179                                                                                                 
                   Application 10/399,984                                                                                           
                   not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments.  Therefore, we                                            
                   AFFIRM all grounds of rejection presented in this appeal essentially for the                                     
                   reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.3                                         
                                                           OPINION                                                                  
                           We determine the following factual findings from the record in this                                      
                   appeal:                                                                                                          
                           (1) Gueret discloses a patch comprising a water-absorbable polymeric                                     
                   sheet matrix adhered to a support substrate, where the matrix is used to                                         
                   cover a skin surface that is moistened by application with a liquid, and the                                     
                   matrix is cut and shaped to mask the face or cover particular parts of the face                                  
                   such as cheeks or forehead (Answer 4; Gueret, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 8-12; col.                                   
                   2, ll. 8-12, 34-40, and 49-62; col. 9, ll. 6-17; and col. 10, ll. 24-33);                                        
                           (2) Sizemore discloses an adhesive tape designed to be applied to the                                    
                   human body where the tape is adapted to be easily severed into lengths and                                       
                   widths as desired by use of rows of longitudinal and transverse perforations                                     

                                                                                                                                   
                   3 Appellant has not presented separate specific arguments for any claims                                         
                   other than independent claims 1 and 28 and dependent claim 15 (Br. 8-11).                                        
                   Appellant’s arguments regarding the grouped claim 21, grouped claims 20,                                         
                   25, and 29-32, and grouped claim 34 merely state that the secondary                                              
                   references to Suwelack ‘622, Shimizu, and Suwelack ‘329 do not disclose                                          
                   first and second subcomponents of differing shape, but do not contest or                                         
                   dispute the Examiner’s findings (Br. 12-13).  Therefore, we will limit our                                       
                   discussion to claims 1, 15, and 28.  Since Appellant does not contest or                                         
                   dispute the Examiner’s findings from these secondary references, we do not                                       
                   include a discussion of these references but adopt the Examiner’s findings                                       
                   from the Answer.  Additionally, we note that Dillon was applied as evidence                                      
                   that face mask material can be made in a roll (Answer 4).  This limitation                                       
                   does not occur in claims 1, 15, and 28.  Therefore, a discussion of Dillon is                                    
                   not necessary to our decision.                                                                                   
                                                                 5                                                                  

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013