Appeal No. 95-4450
Application No. 07/949,676
suggesting a foaming composition containing “8% coconut
monoethanol amide and 2% C alkyl polyglycoside...” (Answer,
12-13
page 9) that would be useful as a softening composition for
textile material. In our opinion, a skilled artisan would not
find a suggestion in Llenado of using the highest disclosed
weight percent of amide with the lowest disclosed weight
percent of polyglucoside in the disclosed Example XXII foaming
composition component ranges of Llenado. Thus, we cannot
locate a teaching of the examiner’s alleged 4:1 component
ratio (answer, page 9)in Llenado. In our view, Llenado would
not have rendered the specifically claimed process herein
prima facie obvious without the impermissible use of hindsight
reasoning. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960).
Accordingly, we cannot sustain these rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cook in view of Llenado
Next, we turn to the rejection of claims 23-33, 35 and 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cook in view of
Llenado. Cook discloses the use of a laundry detergent that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007