Appeal No. 2006-1922 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/207,519
id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 3) is that
Kostial is silent as to the odor receiving layer comprising a
plurality of odor receiving particles selected from the group
consisting of activated carbon and activated charcoal held in
place by a bonding adhesive. To overcome this deficiency of
Kostial, the examiner turns to Pearson for a teaching of a
knitted textile material and a nonwoven textile material with an
odor receiving layer comprising a plurality of odor receiving
particles of activated charcoal held in place by bonding
adhesive.
Appellants' position (brief, page 4) is that, Kostial does
not teach an odor receiving layer on the face textile. In fact,
the only mention of an odor receiving material refers to use of
the odor receiving material in the cushioning core, not on the
textile. Appellant further asserts (id.) that Pearson is non-
analogous art because Pearson is directed to articles of clothing
that protects the wearer from toxic chemicals, and that “issues
surrounding the design of protective clothing are substantially
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007