Appeal 2007-2364
Application 09/879,613
31. In particular, the Examiner found that Onodera taught the use of its
packaged sponges in a clean room, the use of deionized water, and
"particulate, metal ion and ionic counts at or below the values specified for
clean room." (Answer at 3.)
32. The Examiner found that Paley teaches a flexible plastic bag as a
container allowing easier shipping and handling. (Answer at 3.)
33. The Examiner concluded that the choice of "material [PVA] of the
cleaning article" would have been obvious because it would have been the
selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended
use. (Answer at the paragraph bridging 3–4.)
34. The Examiner concluded further that the recited range of hydrogen
peroxide composition would have been obvious as a routine optimization of
the general conditions of the claims. (Answer at 4.)
Skoufis’s Arguments
35. Skoufis states that claims 1 and 3 stand or fall together; that claims 4
and 5 do not stand or fall together or with any other claims; and that claims 9
and 12 stand or fall together. (Br. at 6.)4
36. However, Skoufis does not appear to argue the separate patentability
of any of the claims or groups of claims.
37. Skoufis's principal argument is that "[n]either of the cited references
discloses the concept of using very low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide
4 References are to Appellant's Substitute Appeal Brief ("Br."), filed
19 April 2006.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013