Appeal No. 2003-0402
Application No. 09/569,924
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejection is
not well founded.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants, we refer to the Examiner’s Answer and to Appellants’ Briefs for a complete
exposition thereof.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is unpatentable over WO ‘594.
According to the Examiner, WO ‘594 “discloses personal cleansing products comprising
about 1-30% of a dispersed oil phase comprising an oil component, about 5-30% of a
surfactant, which may be anionic, and water.” (Answer, p. 4). The Examiner also states:
The dispersed particles are not taught to have a net anionic charge, but the
examiner takes the position that when the anionic surfactant is present in
excess over the cationic material, more anionic charge than cationic charge
will be present. This reference differs from the claimed subject matter in that
it does not disclose a composition which meets appellant’s claims with
sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation....
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention was made to
make such a composition, because this reference teaches that all of the
ingredients recited by appellants are suitable for inclusion in a surfactant
composition. The person of ordinary skill in the surfactant art would expect
the recited compositions to have properties similar to those compositions
which are exemplified, absent a showing to the contrary.
(Answer, p. 4).
We agree with Appellants that the claimed invention is distinguishable over the
invention of WO ‘594. (Brief, pp. 7-9). The subject matter of claim 1 is directed to a fabric
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007