Appeal No. 2005-0112 Page 4
Application No. 09/737,004
combination. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir,
1996)(“[T]he motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical
to that of the applicant to establish obviousness.”); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We agree with the Examiner that Hu suggests formulating a cleaning composition having
the four components required by claim 1. Particularly, Hu suggests a composition including an
ethoxylated glucose derivative such as GlucamŽ E-20, which, according to Appellant’s
specification, is a non-amine polyethyleneoxy-containing material having an HLB value of at
least about 18 in accordance with component (a) of claim 1 (Hu, p. 6, ll. 23-28, specification, p.
3, ll. 10-12 and claim 5). Hu further suggests including poloxamine surfactants meeting the
requirements of component (b) of claim 1 in the composition (Hu, p. 6, ll. 3-15). Hu also
discloses that the composition can optionally include additional compatible surfactants known to
be useful in wetting or rewetting solutions such as polysorbate 20 (Hu, p. 7, ll. 9-10).
Polysorbate 20, according to Appellants’ specification, is a non-ionic surface active agent
meeting the requirements of component (c) of claim 1 (specification, p. 4, ll. 10-22). See also
claim 7 which limits component (c) to polysorbate 20. Hu further suggests adding cellulosic
polymers and derivatives thereof which meet the requirements of the wetting agent of component
(d) of claim 1 (compare Hu, p. 7, ll. 25-31 with specification, p. 5, ll. 6-8 and claim 9). While
Hu is motivated to make the cleaning composition for a somewhat different purpose than
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007