Appeal No. 1998-1714
Application No. 08/441,823
in the fourth step of claim 7 and as disclosed at page 7, lines 8
to 11).
(C) Claims 1, 3 to 6 and 13 to 17 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shiino in view of Glo-
Germ, or vice versa. As discussed above, Shiino discloses the
desirability of determining how much residual detergent is left
on parts being washed by adding a fluorescent material to the
detergent and detecting the residue of such material after
washing by means of a UV lamp. In view of Glo-Germ’s disclosure
of the desirability of demonstrating proper handwashing using
fluorescent powder "germs," one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to apply the process of Shiino to a person’s hands,
using a detergent suitable for handwashing, in order to detect
the fluorescent material remaining after washing the hands.
Alternatively, in view of Shiino’s disclosure that fluorescent
material may be added to the solution used for washing, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to add the Glo-Germ
fluorescent material to the handwashing medium, instead of to an
oil to be applied prior to handwashing. This would have the
self-evident advantage of reducing the cost and complexity of the
Glo-Germ process.
(D) Claims 13 to 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Klisch. This reference anticipates the
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007