Appeal No. 1996-2943
Application No. 08/229,648
products which includes the step of applying to the ware
products a composition of the type under consideration. 2
Since the method suggested by these references would include
the same step of applying the same composition as recited in
the argued claims on appeal, this suggested method would
necessarily produce the same results as the here claimed
method including the destaining function at issue.
With respect to the section 103 rejection over Oakes
alone, the appellants argue that we erred in concluding it
would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art
to eliminate the C -C peroxycarboxylic acid from patentee’s
6 18
composition along with its attendant biocidal function. 3
Specifically, the appellants argue that, contrary to the
opinion expressed in our decision, this elimination would not
2It is appropriate to emphasize that this conclusion of
obviousness has not been contested with any reasonable
specificity by the appellants in their request for rehearing.
3In the subject request, the appellants do not contest
with any reasonable specificity our alternative position
expressed on page 7 of the decision that the rejection would
be proper even if the C -C peroxycarboxylic acid component
6 18
were not eliminated from the composition of Oakes because the
“consisting essentially of” language of the appealed
independent claims does not exclude such a component.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007