Appeal No. 1999-0823
Application No. 08/728,337
states at page 2 of the Answer that appellant's specification
"never excludes such wax coatings, and never states that this is
a novel and unobvious feature of the claimed invention" (page 2
of Answer, last paragraph). Rather, at page 2 of appellant's
specification, it is stated that although diacyl peroxides have
been used in the art in the laundry and anti-acne area, they have
not been used in the alkaline liquid or automatic dishwasher
detergent area. The specification further states that "[i]t has
now been discovered that DAPs [diacyl peroxides] can improve
stain removal performance of ADDs [automatic dishwashing
detergents] on plastics" (page 2, lines 31-32). Furthermore, the
examiner has appropriately noted that the specification discloses
at page 11 that "[t]here are numerous waxy materials which can
readily be used to form suitable coated particles of any such
otherwise incompatible components" (lines 19-20).
Accordingly, although appellant emphasizes that Kamel
discloses a wax coating on the diacyl peroxide, the examiner has
properly found that the appealed claims do not preclude a wax
coating on the recited diacyl peroxide, notwithstanding the claim
language "consisting essentially of." Claim language must be
read in light of the specification and appellant's specification
gives no indication that the diacyl peroxide should be free of a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007