Appeal No. 95-1215
Application No. 07/750,777
The term “process” is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) as:
. . . process, art or method, and includes
a new use of a known process, machine,
manufacture composition of matter, or material.
This definition is interpreted to include:
an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject
matter to be transformed or reduced to a different state or
thing. See In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 295, 30 USPQ2d 1455,
1459 (Fed Cir. 1994), citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,
787-788 (1877).
Although claim 21 does not use the term “process” or
“method”, it does recite a skin cleaning process involving a
step of applying a novel skin cleansing agent and water to the
skin. This applying step is not “an intended use” step as
alleged by the examiner. Rather, it is a positive act. Since
the examiner has not demonstrated that the above cleaning
process involving a positive cleaning step would not transform
or reduce the skin, the skin cleansing agent and water into a
different state or thing, we find that the examiner’s position
is untenable. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision
to reject claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The examiner has rejected claims 12, 14, 17, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007