Appeal No. 1996-3847 Page 6
Application No. 08/162,063
581-82, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, "[i]n relying upon the theory of inherency,
the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the
applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). While the
claim does not exclude the presence of other thickeners, it does require the composition based on the
three ingredients be self-thickening. As it has not been established that the composition suggested by
Smith and Erilli is necessarily self-thickening, we will not sustain this rejection.
Smith in Combination with Erilli and Gosselink
Gosselink does not cure the deficiencies of Smith in combination with Erilli as discussed above
and therefore we will not sustain the rejection based on the combination of Smith, Erilli and Gosselink.
Overton in Combination with Chung
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-8, 11, and 14-19 as obvious over Overton and Chung, we
note that Overton teaches a self-thickening bleach-containing acidic cleaning composition (col. 1, lines
58-60). The viscosity range overlaps that claimed. The composition includes a thickening sulphonic
anionic surfactant (col. 2, lines 7-10) which may be an ammonium salt (col. 3, lines 11-14) in a
concentration of 0.5 to 20 weight percent preferably 1 to 7.5 weight percent (col. 3, lines 28-31). The
broad range overlaps the claimed range and the preferred range is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 8
weight percent. The composition optionally includes up to 5 weight percent co-surfactants such as
secondary alcohol ethoxylates within the claimed class (col. 3, lines 41-43) and anionic linear alkyl
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007