Appeal No. 94-4485
Application No. 08/013,653
Meehan '533 in view of Webster's, The Condensed Chemical
Dictionary, Meehan '613 and Sramek.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellant that the claimed
subject matter would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claim 1 over
Watanabe. The appealed claims require adding a 5-15% by weight
solution of menthol in alcohol to a receptacle. However,
Watanabe fails to disclose or suggest a solution of menthol in
alcohol, let alone in the claimed concentration. Watanabe
discloses polymethylene coloring agents in aqueous compositions
to which can be added perfumes or deodorants, such as menthol and
cinnamic alcohol. Consequently, Watanabe provides no suggestion
of formulating a solution of menthol in alcohol, or employing
menthol in a concentration that is substantially odorless.
Watanabe teaches utilizing menthol in an amount that acts as a
perfume or deodorant, i.e., an amount that is perceptible to the
sense of smell.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1, 9, 37, 38 and 48
over Miller, alone, or in view of The Condensed Chemical
Dictionary. Miller discloses adding an odor control agent, such
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007