Ex parte VAN REES - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-0954                                                          
          Application 08/058,092                                                      


               providing a substrate made of a substantially dry, rigid,              
          open-celled foam consisting essentially of vegetable starch,                
          infused with a volatile fragrance wherein the fragrance                     
          volatizes                                                                   
          from the substrate to freshen the surrounding air; and                      
               dissolving the substrate in water when the fragrance has               
          substantially volatilized.                                                  
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Palinczar et al. (Palinczar)      4,339,550      Jul. 13, 1982              
          Eden et al. (Eden)                4,812,445      Mar. 14, 1989              
          Whistler                          4,985,082      Jan. 15, 1991              
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being              
          unpatentable over Whistler or Eden, in view of Palinczar.                   
          Claim 16 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                 
          paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly                  
          point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which                     
          appellant regards as the invention.                                         
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered all of the arguments                      
          advanced by appellant and the examiner and conclude that                    
          appellant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to one                
          of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s                     
          invention over the prior art.  Accordingly, the aforementioned              

                                         -3-3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007