Appeal 2007-2206
Application 10/181,977
protuberance has a “truncated polyhedron-shaped base and a flattened free-
end portion having rounded edges.”
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Roussel WO 99/36253 A1 (as translated)1 Jul. 22, 1999
Laurent US 6,106,928 Aug. 22, 2000
3. ANTICIPATION
Claims 1, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Roussel (Answer 3-4).2
The Examiner cites Roussel as disclosing a two ply embossed sheet of
paper made from cellulose wadding having a grammage of between 10 and
40 g/m2, “which reads on Appellant’s claimed range [of] 12-30 g/m2” (id. at
3). The Examiner states that, because it has a series of protuberances that
form a background pattern with a density of embossments being greater than
30 per cm2, Roussel’s sheet meets Appellant’s density of greater than 20
protuberances per cm2 (id.). The Examiner states that “[e]ach protuberance
comprises a truncated cone or polyhedron . . . with a flattened free-end
portion with rounded edges (figure 2)” (id. at 3-4).
“It is well settled that a claim is anticipated if each and every
limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art
reference.” Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354,
1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Anticipation has been found
even when a prior art range “does not exactly correspond to [the] claimed
1 Translation entered October 29, 2004.
2 Examiner’s Answer mailed August 17, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013