Appeal No. 2003-0850
Application No. 09/334,366
of wettable powders and produces dramatic efficiencies in formulation.” In particular,
Moorer teaches combining a sulfonated lignin as the dispersing agent with a wetting
agent which includes nonionic wetting agents. See column 2, line 19 - column 3, line
44.
Given Moorer’s disclosure that his single surfactant provides advantages which
are superior to those of the wetting agents or dispersing agents individually or mixed
together, we are in agreement with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, in
considering Garst ‘078 would have been motivated to have formed a product comprising
a blend by mixing aqueous solutions of alkyl polyglycosides and a polymeric anionic
dispersant and then drying the blend to thereby achieve the invention of claim 21. In so
concluding, we note that claim 21 unlike claim 1, does not specifically recite “a
composite dispersing agent” and that the use of the open-ended term “comprising” does
not preclude the presence of additional components in the aqueous blend.
This rejection is affirmed.
In sum, the rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed and the rejection of claims 21-
28 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007