Appeal No. 94-4485
Application No. 08/013,653
outlined above, the secondary references do not remedy this
deficiency. Stated simply, none of the applied references,
either singularly or in combination, teaches or suggests util-
izing an odorless solution of 5-15% by weight menthol in alcohol,
as required by the appealed claims. While we agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious to utilize an alcohol
solution of menthol in a concentration that is detectable by the
olfactory senses and, thereby, acts as a deodorant, the applied
prior art fails to render obvious within the meaning of § 103 the
use of menthol in concentrations that are substantially odorless.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to
reverse the examiner's rejection.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Julian H. Cohen
Ladas and Parry
26 West 61st St.
New York, NY 10023
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007