Appeal No. 1999-2556
Application 08/774,848
position (see page 3 in the final rejection) that Watson
inherently
discloses such odorous substances has no reasonable support in
Watson’s disclosure.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 1, or of claims 5 through 9 which
depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Manning in
view of Watson.
The deficiencies of Manning with respect to the subject
matter recited in independent claim 25 and of the Manning-
Watson combination with respect to the subject matter recited
in independent claim 1 find no cure in the various references
applied to support the obviousness rejections of the claims
which respectively depend from these independent claims.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claims 41 and 42, which depend from claim
25, as being unpatentable over Manning in view of Watson, the
standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 10 and 17, which
depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Manning in
view of Watson and Rhodes, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007