Appeal No. 1996-3847 Page 9
Application No. 08/162,063
the claims patentable. See In re Kronig, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) and In re Heck, 216 USPQ
1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In regard to the combination of Overton with Chung, Appellants argue that the combination is
illogical (Brief, page 6). We do not agree. Chung is simply evidence that derivation of alkyl sulphate
surfactants from coconut oil was conventional. Chung is relied on to interpret the more generalized
disclosure of alkyl sulphate in Overton. The rejection does not require Chung to create a problem and
then solve it as argued. The disclosure of Chung is worthwhile simply because it provides further detail
as to the origins of conventional alkyl sulphate surfactants used in bleaching compositions.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to the subject matter of claims 1-8, 11, and 14-19 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellants.
Overton in Combination with Chung and Aoyagi
Overton teaches adding an acidic compound capable of providing the bleaching composition
with a pH value of below 4 (col. 4, lines 8-11). Overton indicates that suitable acidic compounds are
in particular found among the strong mineral acids and lists several such acids including sulphuric acid
(col. 4, lines 14-18). Aoyagi teaches a bleaching composition in which the pH is adjusted to 1.5 to 6,
preferably 2 to 4.5 using either an inorganic acid or an organic acid (col. 3, lines 58-62). Both
sulphuric acid and citric acid are listed as usable. We agree with the Examiner that Aoyagi is evidence
that those of ordinary skill in the art of bleaching compositions recognized that citric acid was equivalent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007