Appeal No. 2005-0886
Application No. 09/805,313
Appellant also submits that "[t]he use of a bath towel for
such purposes [cleaning dishes] will ruin the bath towel and
convert it to a rag, which is not the purpose of the towel in
Carter et al." (page 2 of Request, penultimate paragraph).
However, while Carter may be directed to designer towels, we are
convinced that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
in Carter the suggestion of labeling towels or other cleaning
articles in accordance with an intended use. We simply find
nothing nonobvious in categorizing and organizing articles with
the aid of labels which identify an intended use.
As for the rejection over Scotch-Brite™, appellant makes the
argument that "[t]he specification teaches only permanent marking
or actually forming the cleaning article to the indicia
specifying use" (sentence bridging pages 3 and 4 of Request). It
is well settled, however, that limitations in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. As stated at page 6 of our
Decision, "we agree with the examiner that appealed claim 1 is
sufficiently broad to embrace identifying indicia that is removed
from the cleaning article before its use."
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007