Appeal No. 1997-2745 Page 3
Application No. 08/212,175
THE REJECTION
Claims 2 and 4 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Gipp and Stevens.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials:
(1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;
(2) the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 19);
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 20); and
(4) the above-cited prior art references.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse the
examiner’s prior art rejection. We also recommend that the examiner reevaluate the
patentability of applicants’ composition claims in light of Stevens considered alone.
THE EXAMINER’S REJECTION
In rejecting all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies
on the combined disclosures of Gipp and Stevens. According to the examiner, “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to employ the surfactants of Stevens in the composition of Gipp” (Paper No. 20,
page 5, last paragraph). The examiner argues that by modifying Gipp in this manner,
per the teachings of Stevens, a person having ordinary skill would have arrived at the
claimed invention. We disagree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007