Appeal 2007-1888
Application 10/258,067
compound, and the water- and oil-repellent agent or the treatment liquid
contains an organic salt which is a metal salt of an organic acid, provided
that if the organic acid is a carboxylic acid, the organic acid is at least one
selected from the group consisting of formic acid, acetic acid, oxalic acid,
phthalic acid, citric acid, propionic acid and butyric acid, and if the organic
acid is acetic acid, the metal salt of acetic acid is sodium acetate.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Nguyen US 5,759,431 Jun. 2, 1998
Jones US 5,851,595 Dec. 22, 1998
Appellants request review of the ground of rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nguyen in view of
Jones (Br. 9; Answer 3-6).
Appellants argue the claims as a group (Br. 10-12). Thus, we decide
this appeal based on independent claims 1 and 11. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
The Examiner contends the teachings of Nguyen differ from the
claimed invention encompassed by the claims in that the reference does not
teach the claimed method step of treating a textile with steam subsequent to
applying thereto the treatment liquid of a stain resistant compound and a
fluorochemical (Answer 5). The Examiner finds Jones teaches a method
step of treating a textile with steam subsequent to applying thereto the
treatment liquid of a stain resistant compound and a fluorochemical to
improve exhaustion and efficiency of the method (id. 5-6 and 7). The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of
Nguyen by using the method of Jones in applying the treatment liquid to a
textile to obtain the benefits taught by Jones (id. 6).
Appellants contend the motivation to combine Nguyen and Jones is
not found in the references as applied by the Examiner, arguing that “both
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013