Appeal No. 2005-0944
Application No. 09/941,377
examiner’s finding, Cox discloses the use of a “scented chemical
composition” in the form of perfumes. Similarly, appealed claim
2 recites “scented chemical composition for hunting.” The
subject specification informs one skilled in the relevant art
that the term “chemical composition” includes “a composition
that masks human scent.” (Specification at 3.) Accordingly,
one skilled in the relevant art would understand that the
recitation “scented chemical composition for hunting”
encompasses Cox’s perfumes, which would serve to mask human
scent.
Nevertheless, we find no motivation, suggestion, or
teaching in either Cox or Konietzki to make the examiner’s
proposed combination. While Cox suggests a method for applying
the foam on “inert surfaces such as windows, walls, and the
like” for play purposes (column 2, lines 63-68), such a purpose
has no relation to hunting. Nothing in the applied prior art
references would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Cox’s play method into a method for distributing [in a
hunting ground] a scented chemical composition. In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(“T]he best defense against the subtle but powerful
attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007