Appeal No. 2001-1286 Page 3
Application No. 09/263,795
constitute sufficient evidence to support a conclusion of obviousness of claims
containing that limitation.
We shall not belabor the record with extensive comment in this case.
Shono discloses an insect repellent composition comprising an effective amount of
carane-3,4-diol, as active ingredient and a solvent. Shono further discloses that
The present compositions formulated as described above . . . can be
used by a method comprising applying them to a suitable sheet-form,
film-form, net-form or band-form base material by treatment such as
coating, impregnation, kneading, dropping, etc., and putting the repellent-
applied base material directly onto exposed area of the skin or onto the
clothing. [Column 5, lines 39 through 47]
The base material may be, e.g., a synthetic resin such as polyethylene. When a net-
form base material is used, that of a finer mesh is more preferable. Generally,
however, a size of about 16 or finer mesh is sufficiently effective (Shono, column 5,
lines 48 through 57). Simply stated, Shono would not have led a person having
ordinary skill in the art from “here to there,” i.e., from a suitable sheet-form, film-form,
net-form, or band-form base material to “a non-porous round polyethylene powder”
recited in each claim on appeal. For the reasons succinctly set forth in applicants’
Appeal Brief (Paper No. 9), pages 12 through 15, we conclude that the examiner failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1 through 16.
Having determined that the examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, we find it unnecessary to discuss objective evidence of non-obviousness
in applicants’ specification which is relied on to rebut any such prima facie case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007