Appeal No. 1997-2338
Application No. 08/173,376
Claims 6 - 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being obvious over Chromecek
and Amidon.
The examiner explains his reliance on Chromecek and Amidon stating (Answer, page
3):
Chromecek provides topical pesticide/insect repellants to prevent
insect bites by applying films of polycarboxylated compounds with
citronella (column 9, lines 45-48, column 2, lines 30-36, Examples
18, 22, 24 and 29). The method summarily is shown at column 8,
lines 5-23; selected polymers with active agents are applied to
skin in (column 7, lines 59-63) a suitable solvent. Further
elucidation is seen in Amidon, column 7, showing application of a
polymer to form a coating then, adding water, thus, the method
steps of the claimed invention.
The examiner concludes that (id.):
[i]t would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the insect
protection arts to apply Chromecek's insect bite preventors,
stepwise as shown by Amidon to coat a surface, skin, to protect a
vertebrate, because Chromecek provides the composition, and
Amidon provides similar compositions, and shows the
application steps.
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness rests on the
examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007