Appeal No. 1999-0823
Application No. 08/728,337
Appealed claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kamel. Claims 1-16
and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kamel further in view of Van Dijk.
Appellant has not separately argued any particular claim on
appeal. Accordingly, the examiner has properly held that all the
appealed claims stand or fall together. As a result, our
consideration of this appeal is limited to the examiner's
rejection of claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner's analysis and application of the prior art, as well
as her cogent disposition of the arguments raised by appellant.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for the
reasons set forth in the Answer, which we adopt as our own, and
we add the following for emphasis only.
Appellant asserts at page 2 of the Brief that "[t]he truly
novel and unobvious feature of this invention is that the diacyl
peroxide does not require a wax coating to remain stable, nor do
the other components of the detergent composition such as enzymes
or surfactants require a coating to be protected from the diacyl
peroxide" (last paragraph). However, the examiner properly
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007