Appeal No. 1997-0327 Page 7
Application No. 08/204,150
merely on the Examples in a reference as art to read upon a
claimed invention" (answer, page 5).
Manifestly, on this record, we cannot sustain the stated
rejection. Here, the examiner has not even articulated a
reason, much less a convincing one, explaining why a skilled
artisan would have been led to use both surfactant components
A and B as claimed herein in their composition from the
diverse alternative surfactants listed in the patent. As
urged by appellants (brief, page 6), ". . . Hoeffkes only
discloses the presence of one or the other in his
compositions. . . ."
In addition, we are not convinced by the examiner's logic
that the claimed component amounts herein would have been
arrived at from the teachings of Hoeffkes via optimization
since the examiner has not shown that Hoeffkes even teaches
using the components in combination as claimed. From our
perspective, there is no guidance or direction given in
Hoeffkes that the examiner has pointed out which would have
led a skilled artisan to the particularly claimed composition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007