Appeal 2007-2157
Application 11/000,692
The Examiner’s reasoning – that McMeekin teaches the same pleated
material adhered by an adhesive and therefore would exhibit similar
degradation – is also not supported by the evidence. As discussed above,
McMeekin teaches that the pleats of its device should be adhered
“substantially permanently” while the instant claims require using an
adhesive that lasts only 3 to 100 personal washing events. The Examiner
has not adequately explained why the prior art device, which includes an
adhesive having different properties from those required by the claims,
would be expected to degrade in a similar manner to the claimed device.
The Examiner has not adequately shown that the adhesives disclosed
by McMeekin would result in unfolding after 3 to 100 washing events, or
adequately explained why those skilled in the art would have found it
obvious to use a weak adhesive or hydroentanglement to hold together the
pleats of McMeekin’s device. Therefore, the Examiner has not carried the
initial burden of showing prima facie obviousness. We reverse the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10-13 as obvious based on McMeekin and
Gordon.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 3, 6, AND 9
Claims 3, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over McMeekin, Gordon, and Hauser (Answer 5). Claim 6, which
is representative of the rejected claims, recites “[t]he kit according to claim 1
wherein the fibrous web is hydroentangled.”
The Examiner relies on McMeekin and Gordon for the teachings
discussed above with respect to claim 1, and cites Hauser as disclosing “a
cleaning implement such as poufs, comprised of non-woven material such as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013