Ex parte KLOFTA et al. - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2001-1242                                                                                     
              Application No. 08/530,650                                                                               
                     According to the examiner, Buchalter discloses  (Answer, page 3):                                 
                     formulations for treating tissue papers.  The formulations comprise                               
                     petrolatum (instant A), fatty alcohols (instant B), sorbitan esters (instant C)                   
                     and dioctyl sodium sulphosuccinate (instant D)....   As is evident from column                    
                     3, line 30 et seq., the oily component which includes petrolatum and                              
                     isopropyl palmitate (a fatty acid ester) is from 1-99 %) and the emulsifier’s                     
                     amount is from 1-70%.  Buchalter however, does not teach the amounts of                           
                     specific surfactants.   In the absence of a showing of unexpected results, the                    
                     amounts are deemed to be parameters which an artisan manipulates to                               
                     obtain the best possible results.   An artisan would be motivated to use the                      
                     instant amounts, particularly in view of Dake and Lavash who teach the use                        
                     of the combination of emollients and surfactants in instant amounts for                           
                     treating tissue papers (note the abstract, columns 9-10 and examples of                           
                     Dake; column 6 and examples of Lavash.)                                                           
                     The examiner also acknowledges that none of the references teach silicone                         
              polyethers as the additional surfactant  (Claims 22 and 24).   However, the examiner                     
              argues the references teach generic surfactants and the use of an art known surfactant                   
              would be obvious to an artisan with the expectation of similar results.                                  
                     In response to this rejection, appellants argue that the examiner has failed to                   
              establish a prima facie case of obviousness as the examiner has failed to identify the                   
              motivation for combining the various teachings within the Buchalter reference to arrive at               
              appellants’ claimed invention.   Appellants punctuate this point arguing, ?there was simply              
              no motivation in any of the these references to combine two surfactants within the                       
              descriptions of Appellants' components (C) and (D).  And finally there was no motivation to              
              combine this surfactant system with an emollient and an immobilizing [agent] per the                     
              limitations of Appellants' claims.”  Brief, page 6.                                                      


                                                          5                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007