Appeal No. 2006-0609
Application No. 10/036,862
The appellants argue that Marino would not have suggested a
step of “instructing a user to wipe an animal body surface with a
fresh product at least three times” in the method recited in
claims 1 and 2. See, e.g., the Brief, pages 6-11. We do not
agree.
As indicated supra, the appellants have not specifically
challenged the examiner’s “Official Notice as to the ‘well known
implements of instructional data associated with devices for
sale.’” One of ordinary skill in the art armed with such
knowledge would have employed an instructional material to inform
the general public, especially children and mentally handicapped
individuals, regarding the use of the apparatus or package of the
type discussed in Marino. Inasmuch as the number of wipes and
the type of wipes (wet and/or dry) are known to be a function of
the type and amount of bodily waste and/or soil to be removed
from a human body, we determine that the selection of optimum or
workable number of wet and/or dry wipes, such as those in the
instruction recited in claims 1 and 2, to obtain a desired degree
of cleanliness is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215,
219 (CCPA 1980)(“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result
effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007