Appeal No. 2001-1154 Page 4
Application No. 08/482,579
Regarding Shetty, the examiner finds (Answer, page 4) the patent
discloses “that iodides are used to solubilize the insoluble iodine … and [a]
myriad [of] organic polymers are known to be useful for complexing iodine to
result in iodophors.” The examiner emphasizes that Shetty disclose a “‘broad
variety of detergent/surface-active polymers’ may be used for the iodophor
(column 3, lines 1-3).” We note that the examiner finds support for his reliance
on Shetty in the background section of the Shetty patent. In the last paragraph
of this background section, Shetty discloses “[a]s noted above, the most suitable
polymer for the formation of iodophors is polyvinylpyrrolidone[3], which is the only
nondetergent, nonionic organic polymer suitable for the formation of antiseptic
iodophors.” Shetty, column 3, line 67 – column 4, line 2. Based on this
observation, Shetty discloses (column 4, lines 5-9), “a primary object of the
present invention [is] to provide a new nondetergent, nonionic polymer which can
form complexes with elemental iodine to provide highly effective iodine-
containing germicidal preparations.” As appellants point out (Brief, page 5),
Shetty “relates to the complexing of iodine with a poly[]dextrose or a polymer
resulting from the copolymerization of sucrose and epichlorohydrin. These
molecules are not surface-active agents, such as the alkyl polyglycoside of the
present invention, but are merely nonionic polymers.”
While the examiner does not so state, neither Lennette nor Shetty teach
alkyl polyglycosides as required by appellants’ claimed invention. To make up
for this deficiency the examiner relies on McCurry. According to the examiner
3 We note as set forth above, that polyvinylpyrrolidone is one of the three carriers taught by
Lennette.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007