Appeal No. 2000-1006
Application 08/974,148
that a wetting agent may be used in the composition of the
invention, which wetting agent may be an anionic surfactant.
See column 3, line 55 - column 4, line 4. See, supra,
Lintner. See also, In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241, 147
USPQ 391, 393 (CCPA 1965)(A reference should be considered
in its entirety for what it fairly suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art.) Thus, Jackson alone teaches, or
at least would have suggested, use of a surfactant as
required by the claims under consideration. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 6-8 is affirmed.
IV. Claim 10
Appellant argues that Jackson teaches away from
the use of a defoaming agent (recited in appealed claim 10)
in view of Jackson’s disclosure that bubble formation is
desirable because it imparts a scrubbing action to a
cleaning solution. Appeal Brief, page 9. As correctly
observed by the examiner, bubble formation is not excluded
from the claims on appeal. See, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The examiner
relies on Dell as disclosing that it is known in the art to
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007