Appeal No. 1997-0327 Page 6
Application No. 08/204,150
the examiner refers to various sections of Hoeffkes at page 3
of the answer including portions of the patent wherein
alternative surfactants are discussed.
However, the examiner does not explain where Hoeffkes
discloses or suggests the selection of both a glycoside
(component B) and an anionic surfactant (component A) to be
used together in a composition within the scope of the present
claims.
While the examiner acknowledges that Hoeffkes does not
teach the relative amounts of the components A, B and C, as
claimed herein, it is the examiner's position that selection
of the claimed proportions of the components would have been
obvious as a matter of optimization of the composition of
Hoeffkes. (answer, pages 4 and 5 and supplemental answer, page
2). Faced with appellants' cogent arguments concerning the
lack of any reasonable teaching or suggestion in Hoeffkes of
the claimed composition including both of components A and B
together with the other components in the claimed amounts
(brief, pages 5-7), the examiner responds, "[o]ne cannot rely
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007