Appeal No. 1999-0823
Application No. 08/728,337
wax coating. Indeed, as noted above, the specification, at
page 11, indicates that appellant contemplates the use of waxy
materials as a coating on incompatible components of the
detergent composition, such as diacyl peroxide. Moreover, we
agree with the examiner that appellant has not demonstrated on
this record that the inclusion of a wax coating on the claimed
diacyl peroxide would materially affect the basic nature of the
claimed composition as a liquid, alkaline detergent. While
appellant asserts that compositions comprising a waxy coating
"would not have a negligible amount of streaking and spotting on
the washed tableware" (page 6 of Brief, second paragraph),
appellant's specification provides no nexus between wax-free
components and the asserted "spotlessness advantages such as
enhanced glass care (i.e. reduction of cloudiness and iridescence
negatives)" (page 3 of specification, lines 3-4). Also, we agree
with the examiner's analysis that appellant's specification
provides no definition of the asserted "spotlessness advantages"
and "provides no Examples which show the degree of spotting
obtained with the claimed compositions" (page 7 of Answer, second
paragraph). Consequently, appellant has offered no factual basis
for comparing the "spotlessness advantages" with the
standardized, objective results for spotlessness reported by
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007