Appeal No. 2002-1335
Application No. 09/618,870
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection.
Since Hartman discloses that laundry compositions within the
scope of the invention may contain the presently claimed
phthalocyanine and quaternary ammonium compounds, it is the
examiner's position that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to formulate a laundry composition
comprising both the phthalocyanine and quaternary ammonium
compounds. According to the examiner, "any laundry or cleaning
composition described by Hartman may contain a cationic softener;
fabric softening compositions are not singled out by Hartman"
(page 4 of Answer, last paragraph).
The fatal flaw in the examiner's position has been pointed
out by appellants but, apparently, has not been fully understood
by the examiner. Namely, in the passage of Hartman cited by1
appellants and the examiner (column 4, lines 40 et seq.), Hartman
describes three types of compositions which come under the
heading of "laundry" composition, i.e., (1) detergent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007