Ex Parte Johnson et al - Page 3



                 Appeal 2007-0907                                                                                      
                 Application 10/159,367                                                                                

                 X- is an anion                                                                                        
                 iii) an effective amount of at least one polyhydric alcohol having at least                           
                 three free hydroxyl groups, and                                                                       
                 iv) optionally, water.                                                                                
                        The following references are relied upon by the Examiner as evidence                           
                 of anticipation and obviousness:                                                                      
                 Gosselink EP 0,199,403 A2 Oct. 29, 1986                                                               
                 Johnson US 6,462,014 B1 Oct. 8, 2002                                                                  
                        Claims 1-10, 12, 17-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)                           
                 as being anticipated by Gosselink.                                                                    
                        All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                            
                 being unpatentable over Johnson.                                                                      
                        Each of these rejections will be sustained for the reasons expressed in                        
                 the Answer and below.                                                                                 

                 The § 102 Rejection                                                                                   
                        We base our decision to sustain this rejection on the Examiner’s                               
                 findings of fact and rebuttals to argument (Answer 3:5-7).  We add the                                
                 following comments for emphasis.                                                                      
                        Many of the Appellants’ arguments for novelty are unpersuasive                                 
                 because they concern matters to which claim 1 is not limited.  For example,                           
                 Appellants represent that Gosselink is not anticipatory because it is directed                        
                 to a heavy-duty liquid detergent which contains anionic surfactant and soil                           
                                                          3                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013