Appeal No. 1996-3847 Page 3
Application No. 08/162,063
Gosselink 4,861,512 Aug. 29, 1989
Aoyagi et al. (Aoyagi)5,118,436 Jun. 2, 1992
Claims 1-8, 14-16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Smith in combination with Erilli. Claims 1-8, 10, 14-16 and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in combination with Erilli and Gosselink. Claims 1-
8, 11 and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Overton in
combination with Chung. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Overton in combination with Chung and Aoyagi.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8, 14-16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith in combination with Erilli. We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8,
10, 14-16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in combination with Erilli
and Gosselink. However, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-8, 11 and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Overton in combination with Chung. We will also sustain the rejection
of claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Overton in combination
with Chung and Aoyagi. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
According to the Specification at pages 1 and 2, thickened cleaning compositions were well
known in the art and have been used in the formulation of hard surface and laundry cleaning
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007