Appeal No. 94-1495
Application 07/972,342
the relevant teachings as proffered to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's statement regarding
the anionic surfactant or amino functional silicon additive. On
the facts of this case, we cannot agree with the examiner's
assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious
to substitute a known equivalent species of siloxane polyether
for that of Ansher-Jackson with the expectation of success. The
examiner has provided no evidence to show that the claimed
trisiloxane polyethers claimed are well known in the art. The
examiner's reference to the Appellants’ specification at page 6
to acknowledge that siloxane polyethers are well known in the art
is misplaced and improper especially where, as here, the
appellants have not admitted that the claimed trisiloxane
polyethers are known. Nor has the examiner pointed out where in
the Noll reference the claimed trisiloxane polyethers are
described. At best, appellants acknowledges in their
specification at page 6, that their claimed trisiloxane
polyethers can be made by the methods described in the Noll
reference. Our review of the Noll reference does not show any
silicon compound falling within the scope of the claimed
trisiloxane polyether. Since the examiner has provided no
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007