Appeal 2007-2157
Application 11/000,692
Noting that McMeekin’s cleansing device is to be used with an
“active ingredient such as surface acting agents,” the Examiner concedes
that “McMeekin . . . is silent with respect to the amount of surfactant
employed in said implement” (id.). To meet this deficiency, the Examiner
cites Gordon as disclosing “a cleansing kit comprising a lightweight
polymeric mesh prepared from extruded tubular net meshing and an
effective liquid cleanser . . . which comprised up to 35% by weight of
surfactants” (id. at 4, citations omitted).
The Examiner states that McMeekin’s cleansing device renders
obvious the limitation requiring the pleats to unfold after about 3 to about
100 personal washing events because McMeekin “teach[es] the preferred
non-woven polymeric materials and the preferred surfactant materials for
personal cleansing. Therefore, one skilled in the art would expect the non-
woven materials to exhibit similar characteristics under the same conditions,
absent a showing to the contrary” (id.).
Appellants argue that neither McMeekin nor Gordon teaches the
limitation in claim 1 requiring the forks of the cleaning implement’s pleats
to be restrained from unfolding for about 3 to 100 personal washing events
(Br. 7-9). Rather, Appellants argue, McMeekin uses a string intended to be
a permanent securement, and that “[n]othing in this references suggests that
after any certain number of cleansing uses, the string loosens to unfurl the
pleated film” (id. at 8). Appellants note that McMeekin also discloses using
an adhesive to secure the pleats of the cleaning implement, but argue that
“[n]othing weak or temporary is suggested for the adhesive” (id.).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013