Appeal No. 2006-2581 Page 3
Application No. 10/029,322
interacting with bacteria such that the production of ammonia by the bacteria is
minimized.”
2. Obviousness
The examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-17, 20-23, 26-28, 31-35, and 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Mandell1 and Romano.2 The examiner
characterized Mandell as “disclos[ing] an absorbent product comprising an
osmoregulation protector such as a betaine. See page 16, line 12 – page 17, line 33.
. . . The betaine acts to prevent the formation of ammonia. See page 3, lines 6-9.”
Examiner’s Answer, page 3. The examiner acknowledged that “Mandell does not
specifically disclose glycine betaine.” Id.
The examiner relied on Romano as “teach[ing] employing glycine betaine in an
amount which is effective to interact with bacteria in a wet wipe. See page 7, line 13 –
page 8, line 28.” Id. The examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have employed glycine
betaine as the particular betaine in the invention of Mandell . . . since Romano teaches
that it is a suitable betaine for use in interacting with bacteria in wipes.” Id., pages 3-4.
Appellants argue that Romano expresses a preference for betaines other than
glycine betaine and, when read as a whole, does not suggest glycine betaine in the
disclosed products. Appellants also argue that “Romano, et al. do not merely disclose
betaines, but betaine surfactants. As will be recognized by one skilled in the art,
surfactants are long-chained. One skilled in the art would thus recognize Romano, et
1 Mandell et al., WO 00/66187, published Nov. 9, 2000.
2 Romano et al., WO 97/31092, published Aug. 28, 1997.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007