Appeal No. 2000-1006
Application 08/974,148
reasons contemplated by the inventor). Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 4 and 5 is affirmed.
III. Claims 6-8
The examiner relies on Wilkins for a teaching that
“it is known in the art to utilize non-ionic, cationic and
anionic surfactants in cleaning solutions containing
peroxide to aid in removing insoluble organic materials from
solid surfaces.” Examiner’s Answer, page 6. According to
the examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to modify the method of Jackson by
including surfactants (i.e., to remove insoluble organic
materials from the surfaces) as recited in appealed claim 6
(and also required by claims 7 and 8 which depend
therefrom). Id. Appellant argues that Wilkins does not
adjust pH in his method and, essentially, that it would not
have been obvious to have chosen a surfactant from amongst
the list of other additives disclosed in Wilkins to achieve
the claimed invention. See Appeal Brief, page 8. We
disagree. The appellant’s nonobviousness position is
vitiated by the fact that Jackson specifically discloses
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007