Appeal No. 1996-2735
Application 08/322,741
para. Thus, we find this
spatial limitation of the salt in the claim sufficient to distinguish the present devices from
the prior art devices, including the device which is set forth in Figure 12 of Tanzer.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the rejection is reversed.
II.
As to the examiner’s conclusion that Tanzer would have suggested the use of the
claimed salts in a tampon to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made, we direct attention to our discussion above that the patent discloses that contact of
the deodorizing salts with bodily fluids should be minimized because they are most
effective when dry. Tanzer, col. 5, lines 61-66; col. 6, lines 5-12. We do not find that such
teachings would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art the internal use of the
claimed salts in a tampon. Accordingly, we reverse.
III.
Finally, the examiner argues that the claimed methods and devices would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Jones,
Fukumoto and Heitfeld.
Jones discloses deodorant feminine pads comprising a buffered acid composition
which include, inter alia, nontoxic, solid, weak acids of citric, tartaric, gluconic, glutaric,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007