Appeal No. 1997-0011
Application No. 08/162,508
neutralize" such odors. As noted above, Guillet does not disclose the use of a fragrance, as
contemplated and claimed by appellants, but rather the use of an "antiseptic deodorizing
product". Thus the combined teachings of Greenawalt and Guillet do not show all the claim
limitations required by appellants' appealed claims. See
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439-40 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (a structure created from the prior art references "would In any event, fall short of
the invention" defined by the claims). In resolving the obviousness of a claimed invention as
a whole within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, every limitation in a claim must be
considered.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007