Appeal No. 1999-0823
Application No. 08/728,337
Kamel (see Kamel at EXAMPLE IV and Figure 2). We concur with the
examiner's assessment that it would appear that the results for
Kamel's test for spots "would fall within the 'spotlessness
advantages' as described in Applicant's specification, i.e.
negligible to no spotting occurs with Kamel's compositions"
(page 7 of Answer, last paragraph).
Regarding the examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over
Kamel in view of Van Dijk, appellant has not refuted the
examiner's legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particular bleach
catalysts disclosed by Van Dijk in the detergent of Kamel. In
essence, it is appellant's position that Van Dijk does not remedy
the argued deficiencies of Kamel. We note that claim 1, with
which all the appealed claims stand or fall, does not require a
bleach catalyst.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007