Appeal No. 2001-1154 Page 3
Application No. 08/482,579
DISCUSSION
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH:
According to appellants (Reply Brief, page 3), “the term ‘use’ had
previously been deleted from the claim in Applicant’s [sic] Amendment Under
Rule [§] 116, which was to be entered upon filing of an appeal.” Contrary to
appellants’ argument, no amendment addressing the term “use” was made to
claim 22. See Paper No. 17.
Accordingly we affirm the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C § 112,
second paragraph.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), appellants specification
acknowledges that alkyl polyglycosides are known surfactants, and that iodine is
a well known antimicrobial that has been formulated or complexed with a variety
of adjuvants. The examiner supplements this finding with Lennette and Shetty.
With regard to Lennette, the examiner finds (Answer, page 4) the
reference teaches “the well established knowledge that detergents are typical
carriers for iodine in an iodophor….” We recognize that Lennette does teach
detergents as a carrier, however, Lennette also teaches quaternary ammonium
compounds and polyvinylpyrrolidone. See Lennette, page 132, column 2. As
appellants point out (Brief, page 5), “the term ‘detergent’ is extremely broad and
includes many compounds such as nonionic surfactants, anionic surfactants,
cationic surfactants, detergent builders, sequestering agents, etc. Iodine cannot
complex with every detergent component known in the art.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007