Butler Home Products, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2020

14089952 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/089,952 11/26/2013 Robert Michelson 114386.00078 1065
21832 7590 07/16/2020
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
CITYPLACE I
185 ASYLUM STREET
HARTFORD, CT 06103
EXAMINER
GRAHAM, GARY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
hartforddocketing@mccarter.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT MICHELSON, ROBERT CAVALCANTI, and
MICHAEL SILVERMAN
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952
Technology Center 3700
Before JASON V. MORGAN, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–4. We heard oral argument on April 21, 2020. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Butler Home Products,
LLC. Appeal Brief 2, filed June 13, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “a disposable liquid absorbing
cleaning pad for a butterfly mop.” Specification ¶ 23, filed November 26,
2013 (Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A disposable liquid absorbing cleaning pad for a butterfly
mop, the butterfly mop including a pair of hingedly connected
base plates, said disposable liquid absorbing cleaning pad
comprising:
(a) a layer of a flexible open cell foam material made from
melamine resin, wherein the layer of melamine resin is greater
than or equal to 1/8 inch in thickness,
(b) a layer of sponge material attached to said layer of a
flexible open cell foam material made from melamine resin,
(c) a backing plate attached to the layer of sponge material
wherein the backing plate comprises a first and second plate
section connected by a hinge portion, and
(d) means for removably attaching said backing plate to
said pair of base plates.
Appeal Br. 11.
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis 
1, 3, 4 103(a) Strahs,2 Horii3
2 103(a) Strahs, Horii, Footer4

2 Strahs (US 4,216,562; August 12, 1980).
3 Horii et al. (US 6,503,615 B1; January 7, 2003).
4 Footer et al. (US 6,058,548; May 9, 2000).
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

3
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 2–7 of the Final Office Action mailed
October 25, 2017 (Final Act.), and pages 2–9 of the Examiner’s Answer
mailed July 19, 2018 (Ans.).
Claim 1
The Examiner concluded that the disposable cleaning pad recited in
claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Strahs and Horii. Final Act. 3–
4; Ans. 2–3. Strahs discloses a sponge mop refill that has a sponge body
made of polyurethane foam. See Strahs 1:50–54, Figs. 1, 2; see also Appeal
Br. 5 (acknowledging that Strahs’s sponge body “is made of a double cell,
non-reticulated, polyurethane foam”); Reply Brief 1, filed September 19,
2018 (Reply Br.) (same). Horii discloses a “wiping cleaner” that consists of
a layer of an elastic foam such as polyurethane foam adhered to a layer of
melamine resin foam that has certain physical properties. Horii 2:29–64,
5:66–7:3, Fig. 2. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious
to replace the sponge body of Strahs’s sponge mop refill with Horii’s wiping
cleaner because doing so would result in “a cleaning pad that is able to
remove stains easily” and that has “a strengthened support backing.” Final
Act. 4.
Appellant does not dispute that the combination of Horii and Strahs
teaches each limitation of the claimed disposable cleaning pad. Instead,
Appellant argues that Horii teaches away from the disposable cleaning pad
and that there would not have been a reasonable expectation of success in
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

4
combining the teachings of Horii and Strahs to arrive at the disposable
cleaning pad. See Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–3. According to Appellant,
Horii teaches that melamine resin foam is “notably brittle” and that
“applications for [the] foam were limited due to its ‘brittleness due to low
tensile strength or tear strength.’” Appeal Br. 5 (quoting Horii 2:52–53,
2:64–66). Appellant contends that these teachings would have
“discourage[d] a person skilled in the art from using melamine [resin] foam
on a cleaning pad for a mop.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also asserts that “the
elongated handle of a mop creates leverage that results in strong forces being
applied to the mop head.” Appeal Br. 5. Given these forces and Horii’s
teachings about the brittleness of melamine resin foam, Appellant argues
that there would not have been “a reasonable expectation of success in using
melamine [resin] foam on a mop pad.” Reply Br. 2.
We disagree. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, even assuming that the elongated
handle of a mop would apply “strong forces” to the claimed disposable
cleaning pad, Horii would have led one of ordinary skill in the art toward the
disposable cleaning pad, not away from it.
Horii teaches that the “brittleness due to low tensile strength or tear
strength” of melamine resin foam “has prevented [its] industrial
application.” Horii 2:49–53 (emphasis added); see also Horii 7:4–7
(disclosing that “melamine resin foam . . . has not been used industrially so
far because of the problem in strength (emphasis added)). But Horii does not
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

5
teach that the brittleness of melamine resin foam has prevented all use of the
foam. Horii explains that melamine resin foam that has properties such as
density and tensile strength within certain ranges “can be used widely” as a
wiping cleaner because the foam “does not easily scratch the surface to be
cleaned.” Horii 7:5–18; see also Horii 2:29–45, 59–64 (describing the
physical properties of the melamine resin foam “used in the present
invention”). Horii indicates that melamine resin foam that has these
properties can be used to clean “the surface of an automobile body,”
“furniture or other article[s],” a “domestic fan,” a “top plate of a desk,”
“tableware or the like,” even a “mirror-finished surface.” Horii 1:5–7, 7:15–
21, Table 1. Horii distinguishes this melamine resin foam from melamine
resin foam that is “not suited for practical use” because the foam has
“coarse” cells and is “hard and markedly fragile” or lacks “good expanded
resin.” Horii 5:55–65; see also Horii Table 1 (comparing compositions of
melamine resin foam).
Horii teaches that wiping cleaners made of melamine resin foam with
the disclosed properties have better “cleaning effects” than wiping cleaners
made of certain conventional cleaning materials such as polyurethane
foam—the sponge material in Strahs’s sponge mop refill. See, e.g., Horii
7:4–28, Table 1. Horii teaches that wiping cleaners made of these
conventional cleaning materials “presumably scratch[] the surface to be
cleaned,” “do[] not exhibit cleaning effects upon wiping without being
soaked in a liquid,” and “cannot remove stubborn stains such as oil even by
strong rubbing” “even if . . . soaked in a liquid.” Horii 1:24–34. In contrast,
Horii indicates that wiping cleaners made of the disclosed melamine resin
foam “do[] not easily scratch the surface to be cleaned,” “can remove stains
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

6
sufficiently even without being soaked in a liquid,” are “highly effective for
removing stubborn stains,” and “exhibit[] superior cleaning effects without
leaving any definite wiping trace” “when soaked in a liquid.” Horii 7:15–18,
1:41–46; see also Horii 2:59–3:28 (describing the advantages of a wiping
cleaner made of the disclosed melamine resin foam), 7:4–23 (same), Table 1
(describing the cleaning effects of compositions of melamine resin foam and
polyurethane foam).
Horii teaches that some of these improved cleaning effects stem from
the brittleness of the disclosed melamine resin foam. Horii discloses that the
“melamine resin foam is notably brittle so that by friction[] it is separated
from its surface and scatters as fine particles.” Horii 2:64–66. Horii explains
that “the scattered particles act efficiently as an abrasive” and make it “so
that a stain-free clean surface always appears as the wiping surface” and
“there is no potential problem that the stain [that] has remained on the
wiping surface adheres and re-stains the cleaned surface.” Horii 3:13–19; see
also Horii 2:37–43 (explaining that the disclosed melamine resin foam
“exhibits proper hardness and brittleness so that good polishing effects are
available”). Horii teaches that the “abrasive effects of the scattered particles”
contribute to the “notably high cleaning effects” that a wiping cleaner made
of the disclosed melamine resin foam achieves when “a liquid such as water
contained therein is used.” Horii 3:24–28.
Horii also teaches how to “suppress[] the damage” that the disclosed
melamine resin foam suffers when used. Horii 7:24–28. Horii teaches
adhering a “grip portion . . . to one of the surfaces of the melamine resin
foam with an adhesive” to protect the foam “from direct grasping” and
“make[] it possible to easily apply the optimum force necessary for
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

7
cleaning.” Horii 5:66–6:48; see also Horii 7:24–28 (disclosing that “having a
grip portion attached to the melamine resin foam makes it possible to carry
out cleaning with efficiency while suppressing the damage of the melamine
resin foam[] because the melamine resin foam is not grasped directly”).
Horii teaches that the grip portion is preferably made of a layer of “elastic
foam” that has “higher tensile strength and tear strength than the melamine
resin foam” such as “polyurethane foam,” the material that makes up the
sponge body of Strahs’s sponge mop refill. Horii 6:58–65, Fig. 2.
On balance, Horii would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
toward the claimed disposable cleaning pad, even if “the elongated handle of
a mop creates leverage that results in strong forces being applied to the mop
head” as asserted by Appellant, 5 Appeal Br. 5. The claimed disposable
cleaning pad is not limited to industrial applications, see Appeal Br. 11, and
one of ordinary skill in the art reading Horii would have recognized that the
disclosed melamine resin foam “can be used widely” as wiping cleaner
outside of industrial applications, see Horii 2:49–53, 7:15–18. One of
ordinary skill in the art reading Horii also would have recognized that the
disclosed melamine resin foam has better cleaning effects than some
conventional cleaning materials—including the polyurethane foam used in
Strahs’s sponge mop refill—in part because of the melamine resin foam’s
brittleness. See Horii 1:24–46, 2:59–3:28, 7:4–29, Table 1. And one of
ordinary skill in the art reading Horii would have recognized that adding a

5 Appellant relies on the supposed conventional wisdom at the time of the
invention to support this assertion. See Appeal Br. 5. As discussed below,
Appellant provides little evidence to support its view of the conventional
wisdom and, by extension, this assertion about the forces applied to a mop
head.
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

8
layer of elastic foam to the disclosed melamine resin foam would help
“suppress[] the damage of the melamine resin foam” caused by the allegedly
“strong forces being applied to the mop head” and selected an appropriate
type and thickness of elastic foam to account for those forces. See Horii
5:66–7:3, Fig. 2; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421
(2007). (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.”).
As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art considering Horii for all it
teaches would have been motivated to replace the polyurethane foam in
Strahs’s sponge mop refill with Horii’s layer of elastic foam attached to a
layer of melamine resin foam to arrive at the claimed disposable cleaning
pad. Doing so would have resulted in a disposable cleaning pad that has the
improved cleaning effects of melamine resin foam and a protective layer that
“suppress[es] the damage” suffered by the foam during use. This
modification would have been simply a “combination of familiar elements
according to known methods . . . [that] [did] no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421
One of ordinary skill in the art also would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in making this modification. As discussed above, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding a layer of
elastic foam to a layer of melamine resin foam would help “suppress[] the
damage of the melamine resin foam” caused by the supposedly “strong
forces being applied to the mop head” and selected an appropriate type and
thickness of elastic foam to account for those forces. See Horii 5:66–7:3,
Fig. 2; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. And even if there had been some
remaining doubt about whether the melamine resin foam disclosed by Horii
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

9
could be used on the claimed disposable cleaning pad, “[o]bviousness does
not require absolute predictability of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “for many
inventions that seem quite obvious, there is no absolute predictability of
success until the invention is reduced to practice.” O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at
903. Thus, “[f]or obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a
reasonable expectation of success.” O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 904 (emphasis
added). Given Horii’s teachings about adding a layer of elastic foam to a
layer of the disclosed melamine resin foam to “suppress[] the damage of the
melamine resin foam,” one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Horii and
Strahs to arrive the claimed disposable cleaning pad.
Appellant also argues that the inventors obtained unexpected results
that show that the claimed disposable cleaning pad would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3.
Appellant contends that the “conventional wisdom” at the time of the
invention “was that melamine foam was too brittle and abrasive to use on a
mop due to the higher forces applied to the mop head compared to the forces
applied to melamine foam when cleaning by hand.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant
argues that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the inventors
“unexpectedly discovered that melamine foam could be used on a mop head
despite its brittleness and abrasiveness.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant provides little persuasive evidence that the inventors
achieved unexpected results. To support its view of the conventional
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

10
wisdom, Appellant relies on declarations submitted by the inventors.6 The
declarations state that representatives of Procter & Gamble “expressed doubt
that melamine foam could be used on a mop to repeatedly clean floors
without damaging the floor.” Silverman Decl. ¶ 11. But Horii teaches those
of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed melamine foam “does not easily
scratch the surface to be cleaned” and therefore “can be used widely,”
including on items such as “furniture or other article[s],” a “top plate of a
desk,” a “domestic fan,” and “tableware or the like.” Horii 1:5–7, 3:2–19,
7:15–18, Table 1. So even if representatives of Procter & Gamble doubted
that melamine resin foam could be used on a mop without damaging the
floor as stated in the declarations, Horii nonetheless indicates that those of
ordinary skill in the art would have believed otherwise.
The declarations also state that the conventional wisdom at the time of
the invention
was that melamine foam would be too brittle and abrasive for use
on a mop due to the higher forces applied at the end of a mop
compared to the forces applied when cleaning by hand, and that
the repeated cleaning of floor materials with an abrasive material
such as melamine foam would damage the floor.
Silverman Decl. ¶ 4. Appellant contends that Horii’s teachings are
“consistent with” this statement, Reply Br. 3, but as just discussed, Horii
teaches that the disclosed melamine resin foam “can be used widely” as a
wiping cleaner outside industrial applications because the foam “does not

6 These declarations are largely the same, except that the declarations of
Robert Michelson and Michael Silverman address a June 2004 meeting with
Procter & Gamble. For ease of reference, we refer to the declaration of
Michael Silverman. When discussing the accompanying exhibits, we refer to
the page numbers on the exhibits when present.
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

11
easily scratch the surface to be cleaned,” Horii 7:15–18. Horii also teaches
adhering a layer of elastic foam to the layer of melamine resin foam to
“suppress[] the damage of the melamine resin foam” during use. Given these
teachings, among others, we disagree that Horii is “consistent with”
Appellant’s statement of the conventional wisdom. Appellant does not point
to any other cogent evidence to support the statement, so the statement is
entitled to little weight. See In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972)
(“[M]ere conclusory statements in the specification and affidavits are
entitled to little weight when the Patent Office questions the efficacy of
those statements.”); In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The Board has broad discretion as to the weight to give to
declarations offered in the course of prosecution.”); cf. Velander v. Garner,
348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior
publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board
acted well within [its] discretion.”).7
As evidence that the inventors went against this supposed
conventional wisdom, Appellant points to paragraphs in the declarations
describing Butler Home Product’s alleged testing and development process

7 The written description contains similar conclusory statements about the
conventional wisdom and the unexpected results achieved by the inventors.
See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 68. Appellant does not cite these statements in support of
its arguments, but even if Appellant had, that would not have changed the
outcome. These types of conclusory statements are not enough to show
unexpected results. See, e.g., Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,
642 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Unsupported statements in the
specification, however, cannot support a finding of unexpected results.”); In
re DeBlauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“It is well settled that
unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument
or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.”).
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

12
for the claimed disposable cleaning pad. These paragraphs and their
supporting exhibits concern (1) an email exchange between employees of
Butler and Shuster Laboratories, Inc.; (2) testing proposals from Shuster;
and (3) results of a test performed by Shuster. See Silverman ¶¶ 5–10, 12–
14, Exhibits 1 (email exchange), 3 (April 2004 testing proposal), 4 (test
results), 5 (September 2004 testing proposal).
Here, too, Appellant provides little persuasive evidence of unexpected
results. The email exchange between Butler and Shuster explains that Butler
was “considering developing a mop that would use” a “Mr. Clean Magic
Eraser[-]type product” “to either replace a sponge or perhaps in addition to a
sponge for which it would be used as a scrubber for stubborn dirt or scuff
marks.” Silverman Exhibit 1 at 2. But in this email exchange, Butler did not
ask Shuster to test a mop with the claimed disposable cleaning pad. Instead,
Butler requested a proposal for comparing “the melamine (Magic Eraser) to
cellulose and perhaps poly foam sponges in respect to abrasives or potential
harm the product could cause to” certain “floor surfaces.” Silverman Exhibit
1 at 2. Butler also asked “what it would cost to compare cellulose, poly
foam[,] and the melamine for cleaning effectiveness.” Silverman Exhibit 1 at
2.
The proposals and testing results provided by Shuster show that
Shuster tested whether a known melamine product would harm floors, not
whether melamine resin foam was too brittle and abrasive to use on a mop
given the forces at play. In response to the request from Butler, Shuster
proposed using a Gardner Apparatus (also referred to as a Gardner
Washability Apparatus) to compare “a melamine floor scrubber relative to
cellulose and poly foam, in terms of both deleterious effects and cleaning
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

13
performance on flooring surfaces.” Silverman Exhibit 3 at 1; see also
Silverman Exhibit 5 at 1 (making similar statements about a second
proposed test). The test results provided by Shuster concerned only the
“deleterious effects” of melamine on flooring surfaces. Schuster Exhibit 4 at
1–2. The results indicate that Shuster tested a known melamine product
(“Mr. CleanTM Magic EraserTM”) against known poly foam and cellulose
sponges by “scrubb[ing] with the three different . . . materials using a
Gardner Washability Apparatus.” Schuster Exhibit 4 at 1.
The email exchange, proposals, and test results are most notable for
what they lack. They do not show that Butler asked Shuster to test (and more
important, that Shuster actually tested) a cleaning pad that falls within the
scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites a cleaning pad that includes (1) a layer of
melamine resin foam, (2) a layer of sponge material attached to the
melamine resin foam layer, (3) a backing plate attached to the sponge layer,
and (4) means for removably attaching the backing plate to the base plates of
a butterfly mop. See Appeal Br. 11. But Butler asked Shuster to test a “Mr.
Clean Magic Eraser[-]type product,” and Shuster tested the “Mr. CleanTM
Magic EraserTM.” Appellant has not pointed to anything in the record that
establishes that this product had the recited backing plate and means for
removably attaching the backing plate. And Schuster expressly warned
Butler that the test results “apply to the samples tested and are not
necessarily indicative of the qualities of apparently identical or similar
products.” Silverman Exhibit 4 at 1 n.1 (emphasis added). This evidence
thus has little probative value. See In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057,
1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Evidence of secondary considerations must be
reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.”).
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

14
These documents also do not show what forces were applied to the
known melamine product during testing. The test results show that Schuster
used a Gardner Apparatus to scrub floor surfaces with the known Mr. Clean
melamine product. See Silverman Exhibit 4 at 1. But the results say nothing
about how much force the device applied while scrubbing, and Appellant
has provided no evidence about how a Gardner Apparatus works or how
much force it applies during use. Nor is there any indication that Schuster
used the apparatus to simulate the forces that the known melamine product
would experience when used on a mop. The test performed by Schuster
merely established that a known melamine product would not damage
certain flooring surfaces under unspecified forces. See Silverman Exhibit 4
at 2 (explaining that “[n]one of products test [was] found to produce any
deleterious effects on the flooring surfaces”). But this was an expected
result. Horii taught those of ordinary skill in the art the melamine foam “can
be used widely” on “furniture,” “automobiles,” and “tableware or the like”
because it “does not easily scratch the surface to be cleaned.” Horii 7:15–18.
The exhibits also include a picture of a prototype mop the inventors
made in February 2004. Silverman Exhibit 2. The declarations state that “the
prototype mop comprised a layer of poly foam sponge glued to the mop head
with a layer of melamine foam glued to the poly foam sponge. The poly
foam sponge layer was glued to a backing plate.” Silverman Decl. ¶ 7. The
declarations also state that the thickness of the melamine foam layer was
approximately half an inch. Silverman Decl. ¶ 8. But the declarations do not
state that the backing plate included the first and second plate sections
connected by a hinge portion required by claim 1 or that the cleaning pad
included the recited means for removably attaching the backing plate to the
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

15
base plates of a butterfly mop. And given the angle of the picture and its
poor quality, we cannot determine whether the prototype mop includes these
elements. The declarations also do not state that the inventors tested this
particular prototype mop to determine whether its melamine foam layer was
too brittle or abrasive to be used with the mop, let alone describe the testing
methodology that the inventors used. If Appellant relies on Schuster’s tests
of a known melamine product to show that the prototype mop achieved
unexpected results, that testing is insufficient at least for the reasons
discussed above. At best, the picture and accompanying statements in the
declaration show that the inventors made a prototype mop with a cleaning
pad that included some—but not all—of the elements required by claim 1.
Considering the entire record before us—including Appellant’s
arguments about (and evidence of) teaching away, reasonable expectation of
success, and unexpected results—we agree with the Examiner that the
claimed cleaning pad would have been obvious over Strahs and Horii. As
discussed above, Horii would have led those of ordinary skill in the art
toward the claimed invention, not away from it; one of ordinary skill in the
art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the
teachings of Horii and Strahs to arrive at the claimed invention; and
Appellant has provided little persuasive evidence that inventors achieved
unexpected results. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under § 103(a) over Strahs and Horii.
Remaining Claims
Appellant does not present separate, persuasive arguments for claims
2–4. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims under
§ 103(a)
Appeal 2018-008968
Application 14/089,952

16
CONCLUSION
The following table summarizes our decision for claims 1–4, the
claims before us on appeal:

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4 103(a) Strahs, Horii 1, 3, 4
2 103(a) Strahs, Horii, Footer 2
Overall
Outcome 1–4

No period for taking any 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