Appeal No. 2001-0346 Page 4
Application No. 08/887,648
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the rejection of the claims under
appeal as set forth by the examiner is insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 5, 13 and
18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Claims 18, 5 and 13 read as follows:
18. A pull-apart film laminate fragrance sampler
including a carrier, a fold line formed in said carrier,
whereby said fold line divides the carrier into a first
half and a second half, one of a film barrier and coating
applied to one of the first and second halves of the
carrier adjacent its fold line for reception of the
fragrance sampler and to prevent its migration and
wicking into the said carrier, the fold line dividing
said barrier into a first said portion and a second
portion, said fragrance sampler comprising a sustained
liquid fragrance sampler that does not dry and which is
applied to one of said first and second portions of the
applied barrier, wherein said carrier and barrier are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007