Appeal No. 1995-4903
Application No. 07/926,016
composition containing effective amounts of an azacycloalkane-
2,-diphosphonate ion and effective amounts of a
bis(halophenyl) antimicrobial agent in accordance with
appellants' claimed subject matter and whether Hayes(‘504) and
de Vries would have revealed that such a person would have had
a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Vaeck, 947
F.2d at 493, 20 USPQ2d at 1442.
Based upon our findings supra, we answer both questions
in the affirmative for each of Hayes(‘504) and de Vries. It
is our position that it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to prepare an oral care composition
as required by appellants' claimed invention, from the
disclosure of either Hayes(‘504) or de Vries.
The Rejection of Haefele(I-II-III) Combined with Ploger (I-
II)7
Appellants argue that there is nothing found within the
prior art that can be considered to motivate the combination
Ploger(‘443) is a division of Ploger(‘772). We refer in our decision7
to Ploger(‘772). The three Haefele patents contain similar disclosures, and
we refer to Haefele(‘002) in our decision.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007