Appeal 1997-2526
Application 08/506,545
FURTHER ORDERED that the examiner's rejection of
claims 7-8, 11-12 and 15-21 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gottlieb, Colon, Forbes and Spector is
reversed.
)))))))))))))))) @ ))))))))))))))))
The examiner's combination of the teachings of Gottlieb,
Colon, Forbes and Spector to arrive at applicant's claimed
invention is based on impermissible hindsight. Gottlieb
describes a motor-driven fan with no fragrance. Colon
describes "clips" containing a fragrance which can be hooked
on a vent or fan (Figs. 6 and 7). Forbes describes plastic
articles, including articles made from low density
polyethylene, containing a fragrance. Spector arguably
describes applicant's clip means (Fig. 2, item 20). Without
applicant's specification as a road map, we are unable to find
any reason, suggestion, motivation or teaching (in any one
reference or the references as a whole) to make applicant's
claimed combination.
There is no basis for concluding that an invention would
have been obvious solely because it is a combination of
elements that were known in the art at the time of the
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007