Appeal No. 1995-4903
Application No. 07/926,016
As an initial matter, appellants submit that the claims
do not stand or fall together. Appellants’ argument on behalf
of separate consideration of three Groups of claims appears in
the Brief, page 3. Group I is directed to rejections relating
to the antibacterial agent chlorhexidine. Group II is
directed to rejections related to the antibacterial agent
triclosan. Group III is directed to claim 15 and adds an
additional component, i.e. a polymeric polycarboxylate. Since
each of the Groups I and II are encompassed by claim 1, and
claim 15 is dependent on claim 1, we will limit our
consideration to claims 1 and 15 as we have determined that it
is dispositive of each of the issues before us.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner. We agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections over Vinson and
Ploger (I-II), combined in view of Irani, Parran, Gaffar and
further in view of Henkel and Kanebo and the rejection over de
Vries and Hayes,(I-II)on the grounds of anticipation is not
well founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain those
rejections.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007