Appeal No. 95-0368
Application No. 07/973,211
THE ISSUES
The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Bargery,
Kim and Itagaki; and (2) whether the examiner erred in rejecting
claims 9 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Lister or McClendon, either of those "primary" references in
combination with Itagaki.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation
and review of the following materials: (1) the instant
specification, including all of the claims on appeal; (2)
appellants' Appeal Brief; (3) the Examiner's Answer; and (4) the
above-cited prior art references.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed
materials, we reverse both prior art rejections.
DISCUSSION
Respecting both prior art rejections, the pivotal question
is whether it would have been obvious, at the time the invention
was made, to provide a kit which contains
(b) a second absorbent, fibrous towelette impregnated
with an aqueous solution containing 4-40% by weight
sodium thiosulfate.
We answer that question in the negative.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007