Appeal No. 1996-3847 Page 5
Application No. 08/162,063
Smith in Combination with Erilli
As pointed out by the Examiner in the rejection (Answer, page 5), Smith teaches a liquid
detergent composition containing anionic surfactant, a quaternary ammonium cationic surfactant and
nonionic surfactant of a class overlapping the claimed class (col. 1, line 65 to col. 2, line 12). All of the
proportions overlap with those claimed. See column 2, line 63 to column 3, line 12. The anionic
surfactant may be an alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant derived from coconut oil (col. 8, lines 51-55).
The cationic surfactant may be a quaternary ammonium salt (col. 4, lines 33-49). However, Smith is
silent with regard to the viscosity of the detergent composition. The Examiner attempts to remedy the
deficiency of Smith by adding Erilli to the rejection. Erilli teaches adding a thickening agent such as a
gum or cellulose derivative to a detergent to adjust the viscosity. Erilli indicates that a viscosity of 200
cps is considered best by consumers.
The problem with this combination of art, as pointed out by Appellants at pages 4 and 5 of the
Brief, is that nothing in either reference indicates that the composition would have been self-thickening.
In addition, there is no reasonable basis to believe that self-thickening inherently occurs. While the
proportions of the three ingredients overlap with those claimed and optimization of the ranges may
result in self-thickening, there is no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how
to achieve the optimal condition. The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present
in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic. In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007