Appeal 2007-2206
Application 10/181,977
a person of ordinary creativity, one of ordinary skill preparing an embossed
sheet with truncated pyramid-shaped protrusions would have considered the
angles recited in claim 5 obvious. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim
5.
Appellant argues that Roussel and Laurent do not render claim 7
obvious because “neither reference teaches or suggests a sheet with
protuberances having a total height of between 0.05 mm and 0.5 mm
wherein each protuberance has a flattened free-end portion with rounded
edges” (Br. 17).
We do not find this argument persuasive. Laurent discloses that a
visually attractive tissue paper sheet should contain a series of tightly packed
background protrusions that “evince . . . the shapes of frusta of cone or
pyramid of a height less than 0.5 mm, and preferably less than 0.1 mm . . .”
(Laurent, col. 6, ll. 19-21). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill would have recognized the desirability of using that shape and
size of protrusion as the background embossment in Roussel’s sheet. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Appellant argues that Roussel and Laurent do not render claim 9
obvious because Roussel emphasizes a graphic pattern using a single
embossed zone and an unembossed zone, whereas Laurent uses two
embossed zones (Br. 17). Thus, Appellant argues, Roussel “actually teaches
away from using two embossed zones” (id. at 18). Appellant argues that
“modifying the sheet of Roussel et al. to include two embossed zones, such
as may be described in Laurent et al., may de-emphasize the graphics
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013