Appeal 2007-2206
Application 10/181,977
invention” (Roussel 11). These photographs unambiguously show that the
protuberances made by the disclosed methods have rounded edges.
Moreover, as discussed above, Roussel discloses that the “the cellulose
wadding, since it has been creped, has a certain level of elastic recovery after
the constraint exerted by the rubber cylinder is removed” (Roussel 19).
From these disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that it was reasonable to
conclude that all of the protuberances of Roussel’s sheet had rounded edges,
as recited in claim 1.
“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of
the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of
showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, we do not see, and
Appellant does not point to, any evidence that undermines the soundness of
the Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation. We therefore affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because claims 8 and 10 were not argued
separately, they fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 3-7, 9, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Roussel and Laurent (Answer 4-6). Appellant argues the
claims in four groups (Br. 15-18). We will consider claims 3, 5, 7, and 9 to
be representative. Claims 4, 6, 23, and 24 will fall with the claim with
which they were grouped. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 3 is directed to the sheet of claim 1, where the base of each
protruberance is a truncated pyramid. Claim 5 further limits claim 3 by
requiring that each side of the pyramid “forms an angle, with respect to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013