Appeal No. 95-1215 Application No. 07/750,777 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Oneto, Schafer and Dawson. We will not sustain this rejection. While the examiner has pointed to the various individual components of the claimed cleansing agent described in the prior art references, the examiner has not established on this record why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combined the individual components. Specifically, the record is devoid of any evidence or sound scientific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to add a water swellable organic polymer useful for “soil release and antistatic finishing, for reducing the deposition of soil during washing and for hydrophilizing textiles” (see column 7, lines 49-55, of Schafer referred to by the examiner) in Oneto’s single liquid phase detergent composition useful as a foam bath product. The examiner’s proposed combination, in our opinion, is based purely on impermissible hindsight gained by first having read appellant’s disclosure, and not on what the teachings of the prior art references themselves would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007