Appeal No. 2003-1850
Application 09/783,510
(d) automatic dishwashing detergent adjunct material selected from the group consisting
of detergent surfactant, bleach adjunct material, pH-adjusting material, chelating agent,
dispersant polymer, material care agent, suds suppressor, and mixtures thereof.
The appealed claims, as represented by claim 1, are drawn to an automatic dishwashing
detergent composition comprising at least the specified blooming perfume composition which
comprises at least from about 0.01% to about 5% of at least five different blooming perfume
ingredients and at least from about 0.5% to about 10% of base masking perfume ingredients,
wherein both the blooming perfume ingredients and the base masking perfume ingredients must
have a ClogP of at least about 3, but the former has a boiling point of less than about 260°C
while the latter has a boiling point of more than about 260°C. The ClogP is the perfume
ingredient’s octanol/water partition coefficient (P) that is the ratio between its equilibrium
concentrations in octanol and in water, stated in the form of their logarithm to the base 10, logP,
wherein “C” is the temperature, which is disclosed in the specification to be 25°C (specification,
page 4). According to appellants, the blooming perfume composition mask odors from bleaching
agents and/or detergent enzymes (specification, page 1).
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Trinh et al. (Trinh) WO 97/34987 Sep. 25, 1997
(published World Intell. Prop. Org. Application)
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Trinh.1
Appellants group the appealed claims as claims 1 through 4, 6, 7 12 through 17 and 19;
claim 5; claims 8 through 11; claim 18; and claim 20 (brief, page 5). Thus, we decide this
appeal based on appealed claims 1, 5, 8, 18 and 20. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2002).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ brief and reply brief for a complete
exposition thereof.
1 The examiner has withdrawn the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (answer, page
2).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007