Appeal 2007-2206
Application 10/181,977
that one of ordinary skill would have considered it obvious to apply these
elements to Roussel’s sheet of tissue paper, to enhance its attractiveness.
As to claim 5, the angles of the sides of the protuberances shown in
Roussel’s photographs (Figures 8a and 8b) appear to be within the range of
30° to 45°. (And, even if they are not, it was within the skill of the art to
vary the angle of protruberances in embossed sheets by varying the shape of
the teeth shown in, e.g., Roussel’s Figure 7.) We therefore agree with the
Examiner that a sheet meeting the limitations of claim 5 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant argues that Roussel and Laurent do not render claim 3
obvious because “neither reference discloses a sheet with protuberances
having a base as a truncated pyramid wherein each protuberance of a first
series has a flattened free-end portion with rounded edges, as recited in
independent claim 1” (Br. 15).
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above,
Roussel’s photographs unambiguously show protuberances having rounded
edges, resulting from the disclosed elastic recovery of the cellulose wadding
(see Roussel 19). As also discussed above, Laurent discloses the suitability
of using the truncated pyramid shape recited in claim 3 as the shape of the
background protuberances in a visually attractive sheet of tissue paper. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 3.
Appellant argues that Roussel and Laurent do not render claim 5
obvious because “[n]one of the references applied by the Examiner teach or
suggest such angled side faces” (Br. 16). Appellant argues that the claimed
range of angled side faces is more than a mere change in size, shape, or
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013