Appeal No. 1996-2735
Application 08/322,741
art “to utilize transition metal salts and sodium fluoride in particular in a deodorizing
feminine article such as disclosed by Jones. The motivation lies in the substitution of
equivalent deodorizing material on the substrate taught by Jones” Answer, p. 4. We
disagree.
In addition, to the many excellent points made by the appellant on pp. 6-9 of the
Brief, we point out that the examiner has also failed to establish that the transition metal
salts and sodium fluoride taught by Fukumoto and Heitfeld, respectively, are equivalent to,
or function in the same manner as, the buffered acid compositions taught by Jones.
Although, the examiner asserts that the deodorizing materials of the applied prior art are all
equivalent, she has not provided any evidence to support her position. We remind the
examiner that a conclusion of obviousness must be based on fact, and not unsupported
generalities. In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785, 788, 165 USPQ 570, 572 (CCPA 1970); In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1057 (1968). Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
IV.
New Ground of Rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we set forth the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, for failing
to further limit the subject matter of independent claims 9 and 27, respectively. A tampon
does not possess a body-facing surface and a garment facing surface.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007