Appeal No. 1997-0328 Page 5
Application No. 08/094,072
advanced by appellants, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Hughes and Roselle so as to ". . .
meet the limitations of [a]pplicants' claims in their
entirety" (answer, page 5). In this regard, the examiner is
of the opinion that the ". . . broad range of surfactants . .
." (answer, page 4) taught by the applied patents would have
rendered the claimed composition obvious as a matter of
choosing ". . . the overlapping portion of the range disclosed
by the reference
. . ." (answer, page 5). Moreover, the use of Hughes'
neutralization system in Roselle would allegedly form soap in
situ according to the examiner, and selecting ethanol amounts
to arrive at the claimed viscosity are each deemed obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art by the examiner (answer, page
5).
As developed in appellants* brief, however, neither of
the applied references teaches or suggests, alone or in
combination, a composition having all of the particularized
components, let alone the relative amounts thereof, which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007