Appeal No. 1997-2745 Page 4
Application No. 08/212,175
Gipp’s invention relates to laundry pre-spotting compositions. More particularly,
Gipp discloses metastable emulsion laundry pre-spotting compositions having excellent
stain removal properties. Stevens discloses paint stripper and varnish remover
compositions. Each reference, therefore, relates to a different field of endeavor, and we
can find no apparent reason for applying the teachings of Stevens to modify Gipp’s
metastable pre-spotting composition in the manner proposed. The examiner’s position
to the contrary, notwithstanding, neither reference contains a suggestion to use what it
discloses in combination with the disclosure in the other. In sum, the prior art does not
suggest the desirability of the modification proposed by the examiner; the combination
of references is improper; and the rejection of applicants’ claims based on that
combination cannot be sustained.
Even assuming arguendo that the combination were proper, and we hold that it is
not, we would not sustain the examiner’s rejection. This follows because Gipp does not
disclose or suggest component (b) in claim 21, viz., “at least one water soluble polar
organic solvent, said water soluble polar organic solvent comprising from about 25% to
about 75% by volume of said composition” (emphasis added). In other words, even if it
were obvious to employ the surfactants of Stevens in the composition of Gipp, a person
having ordinary skill would not have arrived at applicants’ claimed composition
containing a relatively high amount of water-soluble polar organic solvent. Nor does
Gipp or Stevens disclose or suggest a process for removing wax from a wax-embedded
biological tissue specimen, as recited in claim 18, or a dewaxing kit for removing wax
from a wax embedded biological tissue specimen, as recited in claim 20.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007