Ex Parte Shannon - Page 6

                 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