Appeal No. 1998-0762
Application No. 08/379,576
4) Claims 1 through 20 under the judicially created doctrine
of double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 through 5
and 8 through 23 of Application 08/379,577.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that
only the examiner’s aforementioned § 103 rejections of claim 1
through 5 and 9 through 20 are well founded. Thus, we affirm
only the examiner’s aforementioned § 103 rejections of claims
1 through 5 and 9 through 20. However, since our affirmance
relies on evidence and rationale materially different from
those proffered by the examiner, we denominate our affirmance
as including new grounds of rejections under 37 CFR §
1.196(b). Our reasons for this determination follow.
SECTION 103 REJECTIONS
We first consider the examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4 through 14, 16 through 18 and 20 over the
combined disclosures of Dany ‘895, Dany ‘415 and Painter. We
find that Dany ‘895 discloses a laundry detergent composition
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007