Appeal No. 2003-0780
Application No. 08/642,962
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied LYSOL product label, to the declarations under 37 CFR
§ 1.132 submitted on May 6, 2002 (Paper Nos. 20 and 21), and to
the respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) before
us on appeal will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
In refuting the position taken by the Board in the decision
mailed February 25, 2002, and by the examiner in the final
rejection (Paper No. 22), that the methods set forth in claims 1
through 11 on appeal would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellant's invention based on
LYSOL, appellant has urged that the Board and the examiner based
their determination on a factual error. More specifically,
appellant has pointed to the finding on page 11 of the prior
Board decision that "the only source for the water entering the
bowl [after the precleansing flush and scrubbing noted in LYSOL
and the subsequent application of LYSOL's cleaner to the bowl
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007