Appeal No. 2001-2225
Application 09/265,647
Similarly, we affirm the rejection of claims 8-11
based on the teachings of the kit of McAdams and the examiner’s
official notice that written instructions are a ubiquitous
feature of consumer products. The exact instructions included
with the kit as to directions for use do not serve to limit the
parts of the kit themselves and cannot serve to patentably
distinguish over the kit of McAdams. These argued limitations
represent method steps in the use of the flexible bag of the kit
and do not impart patentability to the kit claimed as an article.
Turning to the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 23-33, we
agree with appellant’s argument on pages 5 and 6 of the brief
that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Lee and McAdams. We are of the view that the only suggestion for
the combination comes from an impermissible hindsight review of
appellant’s disclosure.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007