Ex parte RIPPON - Page 4


                Appeal No. 96-1957                                                                                                      
                Application 07/423,472                                                                                                  

                pH range (page 1, lines 29-37, 62-65 and 87-88) while Elliot pretreats treated wool fibers with an                      
                amphoteric surfactant at an acidic pH to block the cationic charge on a resin layer on the wool                         
                fibers as we set forth above.                                                                                           
                        Furthermore, the term “wetting agent” is used in Teutelink without exemplification, and                         
                indeed, neither amphoteric nor other kinds of surfactants are disclosed.  While the term may be                         
                generic to surfactants per se, there is no reasonable suggestion to one of ordinary skill in this                       
                reference to select an amphoteric surfactant rather than a nonionic, anionic or cationic surfactant                     
                as the “wetting agent.”  Indeed, on this record, the only apparent utility for an amphoteric                            
                surfactant in a dyeing process involving keratin fibers is with respect to acidic dye baths as                          
                acknowledged by appellant (specification, paragraph bridging pages 1-2) and to acid                                     
                pretreatments as in Elliot.  Thus, at best, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it                       
                obvious to try an amphoteric surfactant as the “wetting agent” in the alkaline solution used in the                     
                pretreatment step of the process of Teutelink which is an impermissible standard under   35                             
                U.S.C. § 103.  In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                
                        Thus, based on the consideration of the scope of the teachings of the applied references as                     
                combined by the examiner, as well as separately, we find no reasonable direction to one of                              
                ordinary skill in this art to use an amphoteric surfactant in the alkaline pretreatment step in the                     
                method of using an aqueous acidic printing paste in Teutelink or to render alkaline the acidic                          
                pretreatment step in the method employing an acid dye bath in Elliot.  Fine, supra.  Accordingly,                       
                the record before us supports the inference that the examiner relied on information gleaned from                        
                appellant’s disclosure in formulating the ground of rejection on appeal.  Dow Chemical, supra.                          










                        The examiner’s decision is reversed.                                                                            
                                                               Reversed                                                                 
                                                                - 4 -                                                                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007