Appeal No. 97-2554
Application No. 08/164,112
sample (in appellant’s Surface-Active Agent Effectiveness
Test) “receives a lower average ranking for malodor and
intensity than the non-surface-active agent coated sample
(control).” This seemingly straightforward definition is, 4
however, inconsistent with other portions of appellant’s
disclosure. For example, looking at Table 1 (page 14), we see
that Unithox 450 (Sample 4C) has an Odor Ranking lower than
the control (Sample 4A), and therefore would appear to meet
the definition of a surface-active agent effective to reduce
the odor of urine. Nevertheless, on page 9, lines 14 to 24,
appellant lists Unithox 450 as a surfactant which is “not able
to reduce the odor of urine.” This would seem to indicate
that some other test has been applied to determine odor-
reducing ability. Similarly, we note that in Table 1 Igepal
CO-210 (Sample 3B) and CO-430 (Sample 3D) have Odor Rankings
of 5.0 and 4.8, respectively, which are lower than any of the
4We do not reach the question of the adequacy of the
Surface-Active Agent Effectiveness Test, referred to on page 5
of the examiner’s answer. Our discussion here is based on the
Test results reported in appellant’s Examples.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007