Appeal 2007-0849
Application 10/106,649
d) spreading l02 colony forming units/ml of the bacteria onto an
appropriate culture medium,
e) counting the surviving colonies after incubation; and
f) comparing the value obtained with a control that contains no
perfume.
The Examiner directs attention to the statement of the rejection as it
appears in the Final Rejection, mailed October 6, 2004 (Answer 3).
According to the Examiner, Hill teaches a perfuming composition
comprising nonanal at a concentration of at least 30% by weight of the
composition (Final Rejection 3). More specifically, the Examiner finds that
Hill teaches a perfuming composition comprising n-nonanal in a
concentration of about 40 up to about 70% by weight of the composition
(id.). In addition, the Examiner finds that Hill teaches that the composition
can be used in, inter alia, detergents, soaps, bath oils, shampoos, deodorants,
or fabric softeners (id.). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Hill
teaches a composition that contains n-nonanal in a concentration of about 40
up to about 70% by weight of the composition that can be added to a
personal care article or functional product, e.g., soap (see, e.g., Hill, col. 8,
ll. 18-28; col. 8, ll. 49-53; col. 9, ll. 22-36).
In response, Appellant asserts that Hill does not disclose “a method
for imparting or enhancing an anti-microbial activity of a personal care
article or functional product . . .,” instead, Appellant points out that Hill’s
compositions are used as olfactory components in fragrance modifying or
perfume compositions (Br. 5). According to Appellant, Hill’s use of the
same compound (n-nonanal) in the claimed percentage “is irrelevant . . .
because Hill relates to an invention that is completely different from the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013