Appeal No. 97-3290
Application 08/465,896
wet odor of the samples on a scale of 1 (least) to 10 (most)
for malodor and intensity. Appellant indicates that samples
yielding an odor ranking below about 3.0 possess an odor which
would “hardly be noticed by the general public.” It is also
set forth (specification, page 10) that “[a]s a general rule,
the surface-active agent will be present in the absorbent
product in an amount of from about 0.005 to about 25 weight
percent, based upon total weight of the absorbent structure”.
Based upon the information known to us, it is apparent
that the tests specified by appellant are not founded upon any
industry recognized testing standard for odor level
assessment, but instead rely upon the subjective perceptions
of a panel of individuals, the individuals being referred to
by appellant as “odor specialists”. We are not instructed by
the disclosure as to the qualifications of those individuals
denoted as “odor specialists”. The disclosure also does not3
3The specification does not identify the two “odor specialists” (panel) that ran
the tests to yield the data disclosed in the application, and does not reveal what
training and/or background would certify them as “odor specialists”. Distinct from the
disclosure of “odor specialists”, appellant indicates in the brief (pages 3 and 4)
that, in the Surface-Active Agent Effectiveness Test, samples are tested by “odor
experts”.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007