Appeal No. 2004-0327
Application No. 09/689,194
Bernardin discloses “[a] method for incorporating small but
effective amounts of a volatile odor-counteracting scent or
fragrance into a compressed absorbent tampon of the type which
has an inserter stick removably seated in a preformed axial
cavity in the base of the tampon” (Abstract). As summarized by
Bernardin,
[t]he method consists of introducing a minute quantity
of an alcohol solution of the selected scent into the
preformed cavity, placing the inserter stick in
position in the cavity, and sealing the tampon and
stick combination in a vapor impermeable pouch. The
scent may be introduced by micro-spraying the solution
directly into the cavity, or by applying the solution
onto the leading end of the insertion stick before
positioning the stick in the cavity [Abstract].
In proposing to combine Hasse and Bernardin to reject claims
5 and 7, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
in view of Bernardin “to incorporate a sealed wrapper having a
fragrance disposed on the inner surface such that when the
wrapper is opened, the scent is released onto the device
disclosed by Hasse to provide the bandage with protection until
use” (final rejection, page 4).
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Hasse
and Bernardin are analogous art with respect to the subject
matter on appeal (the appellant argues that they are not), there
is nothing in Bernardin’s method of producing a packaged scented
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007