Appeal 2007-2825
Application 10/262,036
1 The application on appeal was filed on 01 October 2002.
2 The application was published as Publication 2004/0064117 A1 on
3 01 April 2004.
4 P&G does not claim benefit of any earlier filed application.
5 The real party in interest is The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G).
6 The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 and 22 (all of the claims) under
7 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Roe and
8 Elder. The reader should know that no references to et al. are made in this
9 opinion.
10 The following prior art was relied upon by the Examiner.
11
12 Name Patent Number Issue Date
13 Roe US 5,643,588 01 Jul. 1997
14 Elder US 6,107,537 22 Aug. 2000
15
16 Roe and Elder are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
17
18 B. Record on appeal
19 In deciding this appeal, we have considered only the following
20 documents:
21 1. Specification, including original claims.
22 2. Drawings.
23 3. Final Rejection entered 27 September 2005.
24 4. The Appeal Brief filed 30 January 2006.
25 5. The Examiner’s Answer entered 19 April 2006
26 6. Roe.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013