Appeal No. 1998-0762
Application No. 08/379,576
environmentally safe and effective food, beverage and other
organic stain removing properties.
Appellants separately argue that the use of a solid
peroxyacid precursor, such as TAED, as required by claims 13,
14, 17 and 18, is not taught or suggested in either Dany ‘895
or Painter. However, we are not persuaded by this argument
for the reasons indicated supra.
Appellants also separately argue that the specific
anionic and nonionic surfactants recited in claims 6, 7 and 8
are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art
references. We agree with appellants to the extent that the
applied prior art references by themselves do not teach, nor
would have suggested, the claimed specific anionic or nonionic
surfactants. We also observe that the examiner has not
referred to any teaching or suggestion provided in the applied
prior art references regarding the claimed specific anionic
and nonionic surfactants. See Answer in its entirety.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 through 14, 16 through 18
and 20, but reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007