Appeal 2007-2862
Application 10/955,533
to any evidence which establishes that a product manufactured in accordance
with the relied upon prior art would not necessarily or inherently contain
polyethylene oxide (i.e., friction reduction compound) in the amounts
claimed.
Appellant also contends that claim 21 is separately patentable because
Kato’s product is not a facial tissue, bath tissue, or paper towel. (Br. 4-5).
Appellant argues, more specifically, that “[t]he term ‘bath tissue’ is a
limitation in the claim and inherently carries with it a normal meaning,
including structural characteristics.” (Br. 5). This argument, even if correct,
is unpersuasive since claim 21 is not limited to bath tissue. Appellant has
not explained, for example, how the claim term “paper towel” patentably
distinguishes over Kato’s paper.
Because Appellant has not presented persuasive arguments or
evidence to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness,
we affirm the rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kato in view of Nielsen and Kennedy.
Appellant does not present any additional substantive arguments with
respect to the rejection of claim 23. Accordingly, we also affirm the
rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kato in
view of Nielsen and Kennedy and further in view of Viazmensky.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013