Appeal No. 2000-1038
Application No. 08/888,042
and applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced
by both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This evaluation leads us to conclude
that the examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well founded for
the reasons well articulated by appellants in their Brief and
Reply Brief. We only wish to emphasize that the examiner has
not demonstrated that Carpenter would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ iminodiacetic acid in its
composition and/or to use its composition for cleaning
limescale from a surface. The examiner simply has not
supplied any evidence that iminodiacetic acid would be useful
for a composition used for cleaning a glycoside-containing
substance, such as blood, fecal matter or microorganisms, from
a surface. Nor has the examiner supplied any evidence that
such composition can be used for, or is necessarily used in,
cleaning limescale from a surface. On this record, we find no
evidence that surfaces bound with a glycoside-containing
substance are necessarily bound with limescale and that a
composition useful for removing a glycoside-containing
substance is also useful for removing limescale.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007