Appeal No. 1996-3995
Application 08/283,721
are well outside of the amounts specified in claim 1 on appeal
(see JP ‘677, pages 10-11).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3,
4 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner rejects the appealed claims under § 103 in
view of the teachings of JP ‘677 since the “only difference
being that it [JP ‘677] calls its treatment composition a
water in oil emulsion whereas the instant claims recite that
the water-insoluble solvent (oil) is dispersed or emulsified
in the water.” (Answer, page 4). The examiner concludes that
this is not a “patentable distinction” because the components
and concentrations of the treatment composition of JP ‘677
“anticipate or overlap” those of the treating composition as
recited in the claims on appeal (Id.).
JP ‘677 teaches that the treatment composition should
preferably be a water-in-oil type emulsion (page 8,
penultimate line). The reference further teaches that the
water-in-oil type emulsion “is better in smudge prevention
when it is compared to the cloth using the commonly-used
water-dissolved polymer or the oil-in-water type solution
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007