Appeal No. 1998-0762
Application No. 08/379,576
denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676,
682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Dany ‘895, Dany ‘415, Painter and Hartman.
We consider next the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
15 and 19 over the combined disclosures of Dany ‘895, Dany
‘415, Painter and Gray. Claims 15 and 19 require a second
peroxy bleach, an organic peroxyacid bleach. Appellants do
not dispute the examiner’s finding that “Gray shows that it is
conventional to use the recited amount of an organic
peroxyacid in combination with oxygens [sic, oxygen] bleaches
such as percarbonates in bleaching and detergent
compositions...” Compare Answer, page 5 with Brief, page 14
and Reply Briefs in their entirety. Nor do appellant dispute
that it would have been obvious to include such organic
peroxyacid bleach in the laundry detergent composition
described in Dany ‘895. See Brief, page 14 and Reply Briefs
in their entirety.
Appellants only argue that “rather than teaching the
combination of EDDS and an organic peroxyacid, Painter et al.,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007