Appeal No. 95-3640
Application 08/147,742
preventing the spread of colds by other mechanisms.
The examiner argues that preventing the common cold with
a sanitizing hand wash would have been considered by one of
ordinary skill in the art to be an incredible utility (answer,
pages 2-5 and 10-12). The examiner’s argument is not well
taken because it lacks evidentiary support. Also, as
discussed above, unlike the examiner, we do not interpret
appellants’ claim 1 as a method for preventing the spread of
colds by all mechanisms. The examiner acknowledges that
appellants have shown (specification, page 7, Table 1) that
their method kills rhinoviruses (answer, page 11). The
examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent, why
appellants’ claimed method would not have been useful for
killing rhinoviruses and thereby “preventing the spread of
rhinovirus induced colds” as that phrase is interpreted above.
The preamble of appellants’ independent claim 4 reads as
follows: “A method for protecting against infection by
rhinoviruses”. The examiner has not explained, and it is not
apparent, why the method recited in appellants’ claim 4 would
not be useful for protecting against infection by
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007