Appeal No.2001-1865
Application 09/068,476
indicated by the examiner as containing allowable subject
matter. Claim 4 is in Group II. Claim 40 is in Group IV.
OPINION
For the reasons stated by the examiner in the answer and
for the reasons set forth below, we will sustain the
aforementioned rejection before us.
Appellants' comments are directed mainly to three
arguments. First, appellants argue that Yamashita fails to
disclose or suggest using 25% or more of a crystalline alkali
metal silicate. Second, appellants argue that Yamashita fails
to disclose a method directed to producing ionic alkali metal
silicate granules. (brief, pages 15 through 18, reply brief,
pages 1 through 3). Third, appellants argue that the
combination of Yamashita in view of Rieck fails to provide
motivation to produce the crystalline alkali metal silicate
granules of Groups I and II and the ionic detergent of Groups
III and IV. (brief, pages 20 through 21).
With respect to argument 2, we find that none of the claims
recite an ionic detergent. On page 16 of the brief, appellants
seem to suggest that Yamashita produces non-ionic detergent
granules because Yamashita fails to disclose the utilization of
crystalline alkaline metal silicates in an amount of 25% by
weight or more. However, appellants have not shown where the
specification indicates that such an amount of crystalline
alkali metal silicates (an amount of 25% by weight or more) is
necessary for making ionic alkali metal silicate granules.
Moreover, for the reasons discussed below, we find that
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007