Appeal No. 2002-0938 Page 6
Application No. 08/958,182
alluded to therein is a hand sanitizer, and not a product recognized for use in the peri-
anal area. As such, this product appears to suffer from the same deficiency as Peters
as a teaching reference for suggesting the provision of aloe vera gel in the product
dispensed onto the toilet paper in Gold.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has failed to present sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of claim
8.4 The examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of
Peters is not sustained.
4 Thus, as noted above, it is unnecessary for us to consider appellant’s declaration under 37 CFR
§ 1.132 (Paper No. 21).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007