Appeal No. 2001-0346 Page 8
Application No. 08/887,648
than a microencapsulated liquid fragrance. In that regard, we
agree with the appellants' specification (p. 6) which
indicates that a liquid fragrance is different from a
microencapsulated liquid fragrance.
Since the examiner has not determined that this
difference would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art, we must
reverse the decision of the examiner to reject claims 5, 13
and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
REMAND
We remand the application to the examiner to further
determine if the subject matter of clams 5, 13 and 18 would
have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art of
record. Specifically, the examiner should determine whether
or not it would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have
substituted "a liquid fragrance" for Charbonneau's
microencapsulated fragrance.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007