Appeal No. 95-3977
Application 08/004,075
disclosure is non-enabling. Appellants present numerous
statements and examples regarding the effective contact time to
disinfect or sanitize (see the specification, page 5, lines 10-
14, page 6, lines 19-23, page 16, lines 1-2, page 18, lines 11-14
and 19-20, page 19, lines 18-23, and the Examples on page 20 et
seq.). The Oxford affidavit dated Aug. 20, 1993 (Paper No. 7)
was made of record to show that guidelines exist to determine
what times must be used to sanitize or disinfect. It is clear
from the prior art that such times are well known (see Baldry,
page 3). The examiner has not produced any reasons why undue
experimentation would be necessary to practice the invention as
claimed. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 735, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The aqueous composition of claim 27 consists essentially of
at least about 10 parts per million (ppm) of a C -C
1 4
peroxycarboxylic acid and at least about 1 ppm of an aliphatic
C -C peroxycarboxylic acid, at a pH of about 2 to 8.
6 18
Beilfuss discloses an aqueous disinfectant composition
containing an aromatic peroxycarboxylic acid and perglutaric acid
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007