Appeal No. 2003-0780
Application No. 08/642,962
thereby, in the majority of instances, result in false positive
results.
In the brief (pages 4-5) appellant has also taken issue with
the Board's assertion (decision, page 9) that the method in LYSOL
"necessarily requires the user to 'observe' the toilet bowl and
the cleaner (swath of dye) therein" during the subsequent
brushing step, contending that it is entirely possible that at
the end of the 10 minute waiting period a person would turn to
the task at hand and immediately start brushing before noticing
anything at all about the bowl. In this regard, appellant is of
the view that the Board and the examiner imputes a rather high
degree of alertness and curiosity to a person who is motivated
only to undertake the menial task of scrubbing a toilet bowl.
Appellant also questions where the prior art provides suggestion
to use LYSOL not for cleaning but for leak detection, since LYSOL
clearly does not remotely suggest leak testing.
The examiner has provided no cogent line of argument or
reasoning in either the final rejection or the answer to refute
the points of argument and the evidence presented by appellant.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007