Appeal No. 2001-0964
Application No. 09/069,442
rejection are unpersuasive for the reasons expressed in the
answer. These arguments are additionally unpersuasive because
the specific heterocyclic sulfonates and concentrations thereof,
which are recited in these dependent claims, are optional by the
express language of parent independent claim 4. That is, these
claims simply define specific compounds and concentrations for
the optional heterocyclic sulfonate of the parent claim if the
sulfonate is present but do not actually require the sulfonate to
be present. Viewed from this perspective, it is apparent that
claims 16 and 17 merely describe subject matter which is optional
and therefore fail to patentably distinguish over Korbelak alone
in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
We make the following rejection in accordance with our
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 4-10, 13-15, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Korbelak.2
As previously explained, the Korbelak reference, though not
anticipatory, unquestionably teaches ingredients for an
2For clarity of exposition and completeness, we have applied
this new rejection against claim 4 and all claims depending
therefrom which were rejected by the examiner based on Korbelak
alone.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007