Appeal No. 2002-1643 Page 8
Application No. 09/140,700
1, 7 and 13 before us in this appeal as to why it would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized an
industrial cleaning liquid containing a solvent selected from the group consisting of
acetone, isopropyl alcohol, methyl propyl keytone and methyl ethyl keytone, naphtha,
aromatic hydrocarbons and a mixture of two or more of the foregoing to impregnate the
towelettes in Julius' packet, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established.3
Additionally, we do not agree with the position set forth by the examiner that the
cases of In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312
F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963) support the proposition that in a claim drawn to
a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as
compared to the prior art.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject
independent claims 1, 7 and 13, and claims 2, 5, 11, 15 and 16 dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
3 While it may be well known in the art that one or more of the claimed solvents are present in
many cleaning solutions, soaps, and the like, there is no basis in the applied prior art to impregnate the
towelettes in Julius' packet with any of the claimed solvents. In addition, the appellant appears to admit
(specification, p. 3; brief, pp. 4-5) that wipers impregnated with the claimed solvents are known in the art
but not with a bag as set forth in the claims under appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007