Appeal No. 1996-2766
Application No. 08/258,909
that the claims are drafted using the term “comprising” which
opens the claimed composition to additional adjuvants, even in
major amounts (Id.).
Appellants argue that the Fu compositions require the
presence of a “protein-dissolving effective amount of
surfactant.” (Brief, page 5). Appellants further argue that
even if Fu and Davies were combined as proposed by the
examiner, the combination would require more than a protein-
dissolving effective amount of surfactant, otherwise the Fu
composition would not effectively perform its cleaning
function (Brief, page 6).
Fu teaches that the “cleaning and wetting functions of
these solutions can be achieved when the surfactant is present
in a non-irritating amount and which is 0.01% to 40% by weight
of the solutions.” (column 4, lines 37-40). Fu also contains
the following disclosure:
Tetronic® polyols disclosed herein as wetting
agents also have utility for removing soilants from
contact lenses. All the solutions described above are
capable of effectively removing proteins, fats,
mucopolysaccharides and other soilants that may
accumulate on lenses during normal wear.
(column 7, lines 46-51).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007