Appeal No. 1998-1714
Application No. 08/441,823
(4) Claims 1, 3 to 7 and 9 to 12, unpatentable over Shiino under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection (1)
The basis of this rejection, as stated on page 3 of the
examiner’s answer, is:
Page 5 of the specification, lines 22-
25, [states] "The handwashing medium 18 may
also be in the form of [a] liquid, as
illustrated, a cream, a powder or a spray,
with any of the more conventional handwashing
media adapted for use with the present
invention." Based on the specification, the
handwashing medium could be any medium
including lotion, powder, water, liquid,
cream, or spray form. Thus, it is unclear
and too broad that [sic] what is the
handwashing medium. Clarification or/and
correction is required.
We will not sustain this rejection. The criterion for
compliance with § 112, second paragraph, is "whether the claim
language, when read by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
light of the specification, describes the subject matter with
sufficient precision that the bounds of the claimed matter are
distinct." In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476
(CCPA 1975). In this case, we consider that it would be
reasonably clear to one of ordinary skill, reading the claims in
light of the disclosure quoted by the examiner, supra, what the
scope of the claimed term "handwashing medium" is, i.e., a
substance which is suitable for washing a person’s hands, whether
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007