Appeal No. 2005-0886
Application No. 09/805,313
At the outset, we remain of the opinion that the claim 1
language "for cleaning a surface selected from a group consisting
essentially of dishes . . ." is merely a statement of intended
use that does not serve to structurally distinguish the cleaning
articles of the claimed system from the cleaning articles of
Carter. While appellant maintains that Carter "fails to teach,
or suggest, the claimed use of bath towels for the claimed
cleaning applications" (page 2 of Request, first paragraph), the
claims on appeal are not directed to the use of the cleaning
articles but, rather, the articles themselves with identifying
indicia thereon. Furthermore, although appellant contends that
"[a] towel bearing the 'HIS' indicia that is later used to wash a
wall or a car plainly does not bear indicia specifying 'WALL' or
'CAR'" (page 2 of Request, second paragraph), appellant does not
seem to appreciate that a label can mean different things to
different people. For instance, the "he" and "she" of a
household may well understand that a towel labeled "HIS" is meant
to be used on a car. Manifestly, the mental choices of a person
regarding the use of a towel cannot patentably distinguish the
structure of one towel from another.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007