Appeal No. 98-2810
Application 08/471,457
understanding the scope and content of the claimed subject matter, we also note that, given the entry of
the amendment filed February 6, 1998, this ground of rejection has clearly been obviated and will
therefore not be sustained.
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7 through 11, 13 through 15, 18
through 20 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the basis that “the claimed invention is not supported by
a specific asserted utility” (answer, pages 4-5). After reviewing the original disclosure, the examiner’s
position, the substantial evidence submitted by appellant in this case, and appellant’s arguments in the
brief and reply brief, we are of the opinion that this rejection is clearly not sustainable. Appellant has
set forth in the specification (e.g., page 5) that the shaving kit or system therein provides a shave which
is rapid, smooth and comfortable, and that if there happen to be cuts, the witch hazel on the razor will
alleviate pain as well as constricting any such cuts to rapidly interrupt bleeding. This asserted utility has
not been challenged by the examiner and in our opinion would have been considered credible by a
person of ordinary skill in the art, especially when considered in light of the evidence supplied by
appellant in this case. Thus, since appellant has put forth one credible assertion of specific utility for the
claimed subject matter, he has satisfied the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101. As noted in the
Manual of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007