Appeal No. 1995-4903
Application No. 07/926,016
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Hayes(‘504) or de Vries.
Notwithstanding our finding supra regarding anticipation,
it should be noted that rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may
be appropriate and proper where the subject matter claimed is
not identically disclosed or described. Accordingly, we shall
next consider the rejection of the claims over Hayes(‘504) or
de Vries under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Hayes(‘504) discloses a gel dentifrice which is an oral
care composition. We find that the composition may contain
antinucleating agent which provide anticalculus or antiplaque
effect as required by component (a) of the claimed subject
matter. See Hayes(‘504) column 3, lines 9-11. The specific
azacycloalkane-2,2- diphosphonic acid compound required by the
claimed subject matter is disclosed in column 3, lines 38-39,
and 43-46 and is incorporated by reference to Ploger at line
20. Component (b) required by the claimed subject matter is
disclosed at column 5, line 68. We find that 1,6-di-p-
chlorophenylbiguanidohexane is appellants’ claimed
chlorhexidine. Our finding is supported by appellants’
specification at column 3, lines 2-3.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007