Appeal No. 2003-0777
Application No. 09/554,969
separate arguments, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. We are in complete agreement with the
examiner, however, that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the answer.
There is no dispute that WO ‘169, like appellants, discloses
a clear, liquid fabric softener composition comprising a
principal solvent having a ClogP of about 0.15 to about 0.64,
which range falls directly within the claimed range. Appellants
also do not dispute that the reference discloses that the fabric
softener composition may also comprise up to about 2% electro-
lytes, which range overlaps the claimed range of about 0.5 % to
about 10% by weight. In essence, it is appellants’ contention
that the reference does not disclose the claimed ranges for a
principal solvent and electrolyte. Appellants point out that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007