Appeal No. 1998-0762
Application No. 08/379,576
at most, teaches that EDDS and peroxy acid are alternate
ingredients...,” thus teaching away from the claimed laundry
detergent composition. See Brief, pages 13 and 14. However,
we find that appellants’ argument is not persuasive for at
least two reasons. First, contrary to appellants’ argument,
nowhere does Painter foreclose using an organic peroxyacid
together with EDDS. Secondly, appellants’ argument does not
focus on the combined teachings of the applied prior art.
From our perspective, the combined teachings of the applied
prior art references would have suggested the inclusion of
more than one peroxy bleaching agents, including an organic
peroxyacid, in the laundry detergent composition of the type
suggested by the applied prior art references within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 15 and 19 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Dany ‘895, Dany ‘415, Painter and
Gray.
OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
We consider next the examiner’s provisional rejection of
claims 1 through 20 “under the judicially created doctrine of
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007