Appeal 2007-2039
Application 10/619,656
applying a transferable lotion to a tissue paper which could be embossed
(Answer 4). Recognizing that Luu does not provide the details of its
embossing step, the Examiner has relied on Kamps or the admitted prior art
to show that the claimed embossing step is well known (Answer 4 and 5).
Based on these combined teachings, the Examiner has properly concluded
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have led to form the embossed
tissue paper taught by Luu in the manner taught by Kamps or the admitted
prior art (Answer 5).
The Examiner has also found that the claimed functional property is
present in Luu’s tissue paper (Answer 5). However, the Appellants disagree
with this finding (Br. 5-6). According to the Appellants, the prior art
references relied upon by the Examiner do not teach or suggest forming a
tissue paper having the claimed functional property, i.e., “said tissue paper
product is adapted to transfer a first quantity of said transferable lotion upon
stationary contact with a glass surface and transferring a second quantity of
said transferable lotion upon dynamic contact with a glass surface, wherein
said second quantity is at least 2 times greater than said first quantity”
recited in claim 1 (Br. 5-6). The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
ISSUE
Do Luu’s tissue product and the claimed tissue product appear to be
identical or substantially identical and/or appear to be produced by identical
or substantially identical processes?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013