Ex Parte Hinkle et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 23, 2012

10609851 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TERRY L. HINKLE, RONNIE R. SCHKADE, and
WILLIAM N. McDUFFIE
____________________

Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Terry L. Hinkle et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 37. The Examiner
withdrew claims 10-36 and 38 from consideration. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.1
1. A device for dispensing a single cleanroom wiper
comprising:
a housing;
a loading assembly disposed within the housing;
an access portal disposed within the housing that allows a
user access to the single cleanroom wiper but doesn't allow
access to more than one of the single cleanroom wipers
simultaneously; and
a retrieval assembly disposed within the housing, adapted
to grasp the single cleanroom wiper from a stack of cleanroom
wipers that are stored within the housing and to move the single
cleanroom wiper into proximity with the access portal;
wherein the stack of clean room wipers is inaccessible to
the user.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:

1 Claim 37, the only other independent claim involved in this appeal, is
directed to a “method for providing singular dispensing of cleanroom
wipers” and comprises the steps of providing the elements of the device
called for in claim 1, as well as steps of loading a stack of the cleanroom
wipers into the housing via the loading assembly, actuating the retrieval
assembly to retrieve the single wiper, and removing the single wiper from
the housing through the access portal,
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
3
Thomasma
Kienel
Bonk
Paley
US 3,152,722
US 3,251,448
US 3,986,479
US 6,062,381
Oct. 13, 1964
May 17, 1966
Oct. 19, 1976
May 16, 2000
Tramontina US 6,296,331 B1 Oct. 2, 2001
Vanpro Inc., http://web.archive.org/web/20030623085137/www.vanpro-
inc.com/ (last visited Oct. 1, 2007) (hereinafter “Vanpro”).
Rejections2
The following rejection by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is
before us for review:
(1) claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 as anticipated by Vanpro.
The following rejections by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are before us for review:
(2) claims 1-7, 9, and 37 as unpatentable over Vanpro;
(3) claims 1, 3, 7, and 37 as unpatentable over Kienel and Paley;
(4) claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 37 as unpatentable over Thomasma and Paley;
(5) claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 37 as unpatentable over Bonk and Paley;
(6) claims 1-3 and 5-93 as unpatentable over Vanpro and Tramontina;
(7) claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 37 as unpatentable over Kienel, Paley, and
Tramontina;
(8) claims 1-3, 5-8, and 374 as unpatentable over Thomasma, Paley, and
Tramontina; and

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-9 and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement. Ans. 4.
3 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection does not include claim
2, the rejection discusses claim 2. Fin. Rej. 7; Ans. 9. Thus, Appellants
were clearly on notice of the Examiner’s position in rejecting claim 2.
4 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection does not include claims
2 and 8, the Examiner’s rejection addresses these claims. Fin. Rej. 8; Ans.
11. Thus, Appellants were clearly on notice of the Examiner’s position in
rejecting claims 2 and 8.
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
4
(9) claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, and 375 as unpatentable over Bonk, Paley, and
Tramontina.
OPINION
Anticipation by Vanpro
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 37 as
anticipated by Vanpro is improper because (1) the Examiner did not specify
what part of the wiper dispenser is the retrieval assembly, (2) Vanpro does
not teach an access portal that is a separate element from the loading
assembly and that doesn’t allow access to more than a single cleanroom
wiper simultaneously, and (3) Vanpro does not teach that the stack of
cleanroom wipers is inaccessible to the user. Br. 18.
Appellants concede that Vanpro’s “wiper dispenser is only shown in
the left side of the bottom picture of the Examiner’s VanPro web page.” Br.
17. We understand the Examiner’s findings set forth on page 5 of the
Answer to be directed to only that portion of the picture. See also Ans. 14
(reproducing the left side of the picture alluded to by Appellants, with
annotations).
The portion of the picture alluded to by Appellants showing Vanpro’s
cleanroom wiper dispenser is reproduced below with the Examiner’s
annotations.

5 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection does not include claims
2 and 8, the rejection discusses these claims. Fin. Rej. 8; Ans. 12. Thus,
Appellants were clearly on notice of the Examiner’s position with respect to
claims 2 and 8.
App
App
Vanp
an an
box)
Vanp
findi
trans
two-
hous
with
anno
struc
“retr
abov
right
eal 2010-0
lication 10

The repr
ro’s web
notation b
.
The Exa
ro shows
ng is supp
parent fro
thirds of th
ing.
The Exa
in the hou
tation in th
ture on wh
ieval assem
e the stack
of the hou
02824
/609,851
oduction o
site includ
y the Boa
miner, refe
an access
orted by V
nt wall of
e device,
miner foun
sing on the
e reprodu
ich we un
bly.” Th
of cleanr
sing. App
f the pictu
es the Exa
rd (shown
rencing th
portal disp
anpro’s pi
the housin
leaving an
d that Va
“right fro
ction of V
derstand t
is structur
oom wiper
ellants do
5
re of Vanp
miner’s an
on the rig
e “front ri
osed with
cture, whi
g extendin
access po
npro show
nt corner”
anpro’s pi
he Examin
e clearly e
s through
not dispu
ro’s wipe
notations
ht side of t
ght” of the
in the hou
ch shows
g across o
rtal in the
s a retriev
of the dev
cture abov
er to be re
xtends wit
the access
te that the
r dispense
(in white b
he picture
device, f
sing. Ans.
an at least
nly approx
front right
al assembl
ice. Id. O
e denotes
ading the
hin the ho
portal on
referenced

r from
oxes) and
without a
ound that
5. This
partially
imately
of the
y disposed
ur
the
claimed
using
the front
structure

Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
6
is adapted to grasp and retrieve a single wipe from the stack of wipes stored
within the housing (visible through the partially transparent front wall) or
otherwise explain why this structure does not satisfy the requirements of the
retrieval assembly recited in claims 1 and 37. Indeed, the snapshot of the
Vanpro web page submitted by Appellants as an attachment to their
Remarks filed December 6, 2007 (hereinafter “Remarks”), as representative
of the Vanpro reference relied upon by the Examiner6, discloses that
Vanpro’s cleanroom wipe dispenser releases/dispenses “one wipe at a time.”
Thus, the Examiner has a sound basis for finding that Vanpro’s cleanroom
wiper dispenser assembly includes an access portal “that allows a user
access to the single cleanroom wiper but doesn't allow access to more than
one of the single cleanroom wipers simultaneously” and a retrieval assembly
as called for in claims 1 and 37.
As for a loading assembly distinct from the access portal, the
Examiner found that Vanpro’s dispenser includes a cover and a space
between the cover and the front wall. Ans. 5. The Examiner’s annotations
in the picture reproduced above denote what the Examiner believes to be the
front edge of a top cover and the top edge of the front wall, thereby defining
the upper and lower edges of the loading assembly.
Appellants, on the other hand, contend that a user has access to the
stack of wipers from the top of the dispenser. Br. 18. In other words,
Appellants assert that Vanpro’s dispenser does not have a top cover.
We find that the picture of the cleanroom wiper dispenser on
Vanpro’s web page is inconclusive as to whether there is or is not a cover on
the top of the housing. In any event, Appellants and the Examiner agree that

6 See Remarks, p. 11 (stating “the Applicants use the attached VanPro web
page as the VanPro reference herein”),
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
7
Vanpro’s housing has structure permitting access to the inside of the housing
for loading the stack of wipers therein from a location other than the access
portal discussed above. Thus, the record before us establishes a sound basis
for the finding that Vanpro’s dispenser includes a loading assembly disposed
within the housing that is distinct from the access portal.
With regard to Appellants’ third argument, the Examiner asserts that
Appellants’ claims do not positively recite structure (or steps) for rendering
the cleanroom wipers inaccessible to the user, and treats the claim language
in question as directed to the manner of operating the device and/or desired
objectives. Ans. 12-13. We agree with the Examiner’s claim construction in
this regard. Aside from the access portal, discussed above, which allows a
user access to the single clean room wiper but doesn't allow access to more
than one of the single cleanroom wipers simultaneously, claims 1 and 37 do
not positively recite structure or steps for limiting the accessibility of the
cleanroom wipers to the user. Indeed, the stack of tissues in Appellants’
disclosed device and method is inaccessible to the user only if the user
chooses not to open the loading assembly 206 when using the device.
Likewise, Vanpro’s description of the dispenser as dispensing “one wipe at a
time,” in the snapshot of Vanpro’s web page submitted by Appellants as
representative of the Vanpro reference, indicates that Vanpro’s dispenser is
intended to be used in such a manner that users access only the wiper that is
dispensed. Thus, the record establishes a sound basis for the Examiner’s
finding that Vanpro describes a device as recited in claim 1 and a method as
recited in claim 37 “wherein the stack of the cleanroom wipers is
inaccessible to the user.”
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 37 as
anticipated by Vanpro.
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
8
Appellants reiterate the same arguments asserted against the rejection
of claim 1 in contesting the rejection of claims 5-7 and 9 as anticipated by
Vanpro. See Br. 19-23. These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons
discussed above. Appellants further point out additional limitations recited
in claims 5-7 and 9, and baldly assert that these features in combination with
the limitations of independent claim 1 are not taught or suggested by
Vanpro. Id. These vague statements do not constitute separate arguments
for patentability of the dependent claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). We sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 5-7 and 9 as anticipated by Vanpro.
We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3 as anticipated by
Vanpro. Vanpro discusses the use of metal (and other materials) generally
on equipment that Vanpro sells, and specifically discloses the use of metal in
end effectors, wafer handling cassettes, and disc drive components, but does
not describe the use of metal on cleanroom wiper dispenser housings.
Obviousness in view of Vanpro
Appellants reiterate the same arguments asserted against the rejection
of claims 1 and 37 as anticipated by Vanpro in contesting the rejection of
claims 1-7, 9, and 37 as unpatentable over Vanpro. See Br. 23-35. These
arguments are not convincing with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 37 for
the reasons discussed above. Appellants also point out additional features
recited in the dependent claims and baldly assert that these features in
combination with the limitations of independent claim 1 are not taught or
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
9
suggested by Vanpro. As noted above, these vague statements do not
constitute separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We sustain the rejection of these
claims as unpatentable over Vanpro.
In contesting the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Vanpro,
Appellants additionally argue that Vanpro does not discuss the use of metal
for the wiper dispenser. Br. 27. As indicated in our discussion above of the
rejection of claim 3 as anticipated by Vanpro, we agree with Appellants. In
rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vanpro, the
Examiner does not articulate any reason why it might have been obvious to
modify Vanpro’s wiper dispenser to make the housing thereof from metal,
and thus does not cure the deficiency in the anticipation rejection. Thus, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Vanpro.
Obviousness in view of Vanpro and Tramontina
In contesting the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-9 as unpatentable over
Vanpro and Tramontina, Appellants repeat several of the same arguments
asserted against the rejections based on Vanpro alone. We find these
arguments unconvincing for the reasons discussed above.
Appellants additionally argue that it would not have been obvious to
combine Tramontina with Vanpro because Tramontina is directed to a paper
towel dispenser, rather than to a cleanroom wiper dispenser, as disclosed by
Vanpro, and a person of ordinary skill in the art knows that paper towels and
cleanroom wipers act differently in dispensers because of their inherently
different characteristics. Br. 72.
Appellants’ argument is not convincing. First, while Appellants’
Specification characterizes cleanroom wipers as being a specialized product
developed for a specialized application (para. [0002]), it is not apparent from
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
10
the criteria for cleanroom wipers set forth in paragraph [0003] and the
description of material and finish features of cleanroom wipers described in
paragraph [0006] of Appellants’ Specification that cleanroom wipers would
act in a manner substantially differently from paper towels. Merely by way
of example, the cellulosic material and nap features for absorbency of the
cleanroom wipers described in Appellants’ Specification are not inconsistent
with paper towels, which commonly comprise cellulosic material such as
wood pulp and may be provided with nap features for absorbency, a
desirable characteristic for a paper towel. Moreover, even accepting
Appellants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that cleanroom wipers act differently in dispensers than do paper
towels, Appellants have not adequately explained why any such differences
would render the advantages of opacity and polycarbonate for dispenser
housings cited by Tramontina (see col. 3, ll. 15-24) and relied upon by the
Examiner (Ans. 10) any less applicable for a cleanroom wiper dispenser.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 37 as unpatentable over
Vanpro and Tramontina. We also sustain the like rejection of dependent
claims 2, 8, and 9, for which Appellants have not asserted any separate
argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011) (providing that when
multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group
by the appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group to
decide the appeal with respect to the group as to the ground of rejection on
the basis of the selected claim alone).
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, which requires that the housing
comprise metal, suffers from the same deficiency as the rejections of claim 3
based on Vanpro alone. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as
unpatentable over Vanpro and Tramontina.
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
11
With respect to claims 5-7, Appellants additionally argue that Vanpro
and Tramontina are not combinable to arrive at the claimed invention
because Tramontina is not suitable for shelf-top, tabletop, or freestanding
floor use. Br. 77, 80, 83. These arguments are not convincing, because they
attack Tramontina in isolation rather than in combination with Vanpro.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Moreover, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of
claims 5-7, which simply require that the housing be formed of a size
suitable for shelf-top, tabletop, or freestanding floor use. Appellants do not
allege that Vanpro’s dispenser housing is of a size unsuitable for shelf-top,
tabletop, or freestanding floor use.
We sustain the rejection of claims 5-7 as unpatentable over Vanpro
and Tramontina.
Obviousness in view of Kienel and Paley
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments asserted against the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, and 37 as unpatentable over Kienel and Paley, but
we do not find them convincing. See Br. 35-43. Appellants discuss claims
1, 3, 7, and 37 under separate headings and point out different limitations
recited therein. However, in discussing claims 7 and 37, Appellants merely
reiterate essentially the same arguments asserted for claim 1.
Appellants argue that Kienel teaches dispensing clean fabric shop
towels in exchange for soiled towels, and that Kienel’s mechanical teeth
(needles 244) are not capable of dispensing cleanroom wipers as described
in Appellants’ Specification. Br. 36, 42. Thus, according to Appellants,
Kienel does not disclose a retrieval assembly as claimed. Id.
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
12
Appellants’ assertion that Kienel’s needles 244 would not be capable
of dispensing cleanroom wipers amounts to mere attorney argument
unsupported by evidence or technical reasoning, and thus is not convincing.
An attorney’s arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence. In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nothing in the description of
Appellants’ cleanroom wipers suggests that a needle-type gripper of the type
disclosed by Kienel would be incapable of gripping and dispensing such
wipers. In any event, to the extent that any modifications might be required
to render Kienel’s gripping device suitable for gripping and dispensing
cleanroom wipers, there is nothing in the record before us suggesting that
such modifications would have been beyond the technical grasp of a person
of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants also argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not use Kienel’s apparatus to dispense cleanroom wipers because of the high
level of contamination created by the operation of Kienel’s apparatus. Br.
36, 42. It is not apparent from the portions of Kienel’s disclosure cited by
Appellants in support of this assertion, and Appellants have not adequately
explained, why this would be the case. An apparatus that accepts soiled
wipers and stores them in a housing would seemingly be beneficial for
cleanliness.
Appellants also argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not combine the teachings of Kienel and Paley, because Kienel is directed to
dispensing dry shop towels in exchange for soiled towels, while Paley is
directed to dispensing wet wipers. Br. 37, 43. The Examiner relies on Paley
only for its teachings regarding the use of wipers in semiconductor
cleanrooms to maintain cleanliness. Ans. 7, 16; see also Paley, col. 1, ll. 10-
15; col. 7, ll. 24-45 (describing the use of applicators or wipers in cleaning
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
13
surfaces in clean rooms). As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 16), Kienel
and Paley are both directed to wiping cloths for maintaining cleanliness in
work areas (Kienel, col. 1, ll. 16-19; Paley, col. 7, ll. 24-45). Armed with
the knowledge that cleanroom wipers are routinely needed and used in clean
rooms, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to
provide a dispenser such as the one disclosed by Kienel in such an
environment, with whatever modifications, if any, might be necessary to
adapt Kienel’s dispenser for use with known cleanroom wipers. Thus, we
reject Appellants’ argument that it would not have been obvious to combine
the teachings of Kienel and Paley as proposed by the Examiner.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Appellants argue that Kienel
teaches an inside wall 28 comprising metal, not a housing, as called for in
claim 3. Br. 38. This argument is not convincing. We agree with the
Examiner that an inside wall is part of a housing. Ans. 16. Claim 3 merely
requires that the housing comprise metal, not that the entirety of the housing
be made of metal.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, and
37 as unpatentable over Kienel and Paley.
Obviousness in view of Kienel, Paley, and Tramontina
In addition to the arguments asserted against the combination of
Kienel and Paley, which we find unconvincing for the reasons discussed
above, Appellants also argue that one skilled in the art would not combine
Kienel, Paley, and Tramontina because Kienel is directed to dispensing dry
shop towels, Paley is directed to dispensing wet wipers, Tramontina is
directed to a paper towel dispenser, and shop towels, paper towels, and
cleanroom wipers act differently in dispensers because of their inherently
different characteristics. Br. 90-91.
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
14
As discussed above, it is not apparent from the criteria for cleanroom
wipers set forth in paragraph [0003] and the description of material and
finish features of cleanroom wipers described in paragraph [0006] of
Appellants’ Specification that cleanroom wipers would act in a manner
substantially differently from paper towels or shop towels. Moreover, even
accepting Appellants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that cleanroom wipers act differently in dispensers than do
paper towels or shop towels, Appellants have not adequately explained why
any such differences would render the advantages of opacity and
polycarbonate for dispenser housings cited by Tramontina (see col. 3, ll. 15-
25) and relied upon by the Examiner (Ans. 10) any less applicable for a
cleanroom wiper dispenser.
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Kienel, Paley, and Tramontina would not yield the invention
recited in claim 7, because Tramontina’s apparatus is not suitable for
freestanding floor use. Br. 95. This argument is not persuasive, because it
attacks Tramontina in isolation rather than as combined with Kienel and
Paley, and further does not address the actual language of claim 7, which
recites that the device is formed of a size suitable for freestanding floor use.
The Examiner found that Kienel’s housing is formed of a size suitable for
freestanding floor use (Ans. 6) and relied on Tramontina only for its
teachings with respect to dispenser housing materials. Appellants do not
dispute that Kienel’s device is formed of a size suitable for freestanding
floor use.
For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not convince us the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 37 as unpatentable over
Kienel, Paley, and Tramontina. We sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
15
Obviousness in view of Thomasma and Paley
We have considered Appellants’ arguments against this rejection on
pages 44-55 of the Appeal Brief, but we do not find them persuasive.
Appellants discuss claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 37 under separate headings and
point out claim limitations therein. However, in discussing claims 3 and 37,
Appellants essentially just reiterate the same arguments asserted for claim 1.
In contesting this rejection, Appellants argue that Thomasma teaches
dispensing paper towels, not cleanroom wipers, and that the nature of
Appellants’ cleanroom wiper is incompatible with the hanging and curling
action, and with the frictional element taught by Thomasma. Br. 45, 54.
This argument is not convincing. As discussed above, it is not
apparent from the criteria for cleanroom wipers set forth in paragraph [0003]
and the description of material and finish features of cleanroom wipers
described in paragraph [0006] of Appellants’ Specification that cleanroom
wipers would act in a manner substantially differently from paper towels.
Merely by way of example, the cellulosic material and nap features for
absorbency of the cleanroom wipers described in Appellants’ Specification
are not inconsistent with paper towels, which commonly comprise cellulosic
material such as wood pulp and may be provided with nap features for
absorbency, a desirable characteristic for a paper towel.
Appellants also argue that Thomasma does not teach a loading
assembly disposed within the housing, as required in independent claims 1
and 37, and loading a stack of cleanroom wipers into the housing via the
loading assembly, as required in claim 37. Br. 45, 47, 55.
The Examiner found that Thomasma’s front panel 37 and hinge pins
42 correspond to the claimed loading assembly. Ans. 16. Appellants do not
specifically explain why this finding is in error, but merely broadly assert
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
16
that Paley “does not teach a loading assembly disposed within the housing”
as claimed. Br. 45, 47. Thomasma’s front panel 37 and hinge pins 42, like
the hinged lid that comprises Appellants’ loading assembly 206 (Spec. 10,
para. [0018]; fig. 2), are part of the housing, and thus reasonably appear to
be “within the housing” as called for in claims 1 and 37.
Appellants additionally argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not combine Thomasma with Paley because Thomasma is directed to
dispensing dry paper towels and Paley is directed to dispensing wet wipers.
Br. 46, 48, 55. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s reasoning in
responding to this argument in the paragraph bridging pages 16 and 17 of the
Answer.
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to combine
Thomasma and Paley to arrive at the subject matter of claims 5 and 6,
because Thomasma’s dispenser is not suitable for shelf-top use or for
tabletop use. Br. 50, 52-53. These arguments are not commensurate with
the scope of claims 5 and 6, which recite that the housing is formed of a size
suitable for shelf-top use and for tabletop use, respectively. The Examiner
found that Thomasma’s housing is formed of such a size (Ans. 7), and
Appellants have not pointed out why that finding is in error.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6,
and 37 as unpatentable over Thomasma and Paley.
Obviousness over Thomasma, Paley, and Tramontina
We have considered Appellants’ arguments on pages 101-119 of the
Appeal Brief, but we do not find them persuasive. In addition to the
arguments asserted against the combination of Thomasma and Paley, which
we find unconvincing for the reasons discussed above, Appellants also argue
that one skilled in the art would not combine Thomasma, Paley, and
Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
17
Tramontina because Thomasma and Tramontina are directed to dispensing
paper towels, while Paley is directed to dispensing wet towels, and paper
towels and cleanroom wipers act differently in dispensers because of their
inherently different characteristics. Br. 104, 119. This argument is
unpersuasive for the same reasons as the similar argument asserted against
the combination of Kienel, Paley, and Tramontina.
Appellants also argue that it would not have been obvious to combine
Thomasma, Paley, and Tramontina to arrive at the invention recited in
claims 5-7, because Thomasma and Tramontina do not disclose an apparatus
that is suitable for shelf-top use, for tabletop use, and for freestanding floor
use. Br. 110, 113, 116. These arguments are not convincing because they
are not commensurate with the scope of claims 5-7, which recite that the
housing is formed of a size suitable for shelf-top use and for tabletop use,
respectively.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and
37 as unpatentable over Thomasma, Paley, and Tramontina.
Obviousness over Bonk and Paley, and
over Bonk, Paley, and Tramontina
Inasmuch as we have already sustained at least one rejection of each
of the claims involved in this appeal, we need not reach a determination as to
the propriety of the rejections based on Bonk and Paley and on Bonk, Paley,
and Tramontina.

Appeal 2010-002824
Application 10/609,851
18
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 37 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

hh