Appeal 2007-2206
Application 10/181,977
range,” but the prior art “range entirely encompasses, and does not
significantly deviate from, [the] claimed ranges.” See Perricone v. Medicis
Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (court found that a claimed range of 0.025 to 5% did not significantly
deviate from a prior art range of 0.01 to 20%).
Roussel discloses “a sheet of absorbent paper made of cellulose
wadding whose weight ranges from 10 and 40 g/m2” (Roussel 6). Roussel
therefore meets the limitation in claim 1 requiring the sheet to have a weight
between 12 and 30 g/m2. Roussel also discloses that the sheet has a “first
embossed zone [that] forms a background weave motif whose number of
embossments . . . is greater than 30 per cm2” (id.). Roussel therefore meets
the limitation in claim 1 requiring the sheet to have a series of protuberances
with a density greater than 20 protuberances per cm2.
Roussel discloses that the background embossments “have the shape
of a truncated cone” (Roussel, abstract; see also Figure 2). Roussel also
discloses that those embossments “have a generally tapered shape but may
also have a tapered shape at the base and a cylindrical shape towards the top.
The cross section may be circular, oval, polygonal, or another shape”
(Roussel 18). Based on these teachings we agree with the Examiner that
Roussel meets the limitation requiring the protuberances to have a
“truncated polyhedron-shaped base and a flattened free-end portion.”
Roussel states that “[F]igures 8a and 8b show two photos of cross
sections of samples made according to the invention” (Roussel 11). The
photos show that the background embossments have rounded edges, as
required by claim 1 (Roussel, Figures 8a and 8b). Because Roussel
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013