Appeal No. 2003-1850
Application 09/783,510
extent.2 On this basis, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably
arrived at a suitable workable or optimum range for such ingredients following the teachings of
the reference. We find that appellants essentially rely on the same arguments with respect to
appealed claim 5 (brief, pages 14-15), and we find no limitation in this claim which would
distinguish it from our reasons for finding appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1
unpersuasive. With respect to appellants’ arguments concerning appealed claim 8 (id., page 15),
we note the examiner’s finding that “twelve of the first twenty non-blooming perfume
ingredients of [Trinh Table 3] are among the first twenty base masking ingredients recited” in the
Markush group of this claim (answer, page 6).
With respect to appellants’ arguments that Trinh does not disclose an amount of water
falling within the ranges specified in appealed claims 18 and 20 (brief, pages 16-17; reply brief,
pages 2-3), we remain convinced that one of ordinary skill would have selected an amount of
water suitable for the form in which an automatic dishwashing detergent composition of Trinh is
to be sold. Indeed, the preference of Trinh for a granular form for sales purposes does not detract
from the teachings of the reference with respect to other forms of such detergent compositions
that are commonly sold. Merck v. Biocraft, supra, quoting Lamberti, supra.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Trinh with appellants’ countervailing evidence
of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by
appealed claims 1 through 20 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
2 With respect to appellants’ argument that Trinh is non-enabling with respect to the claimed
invention on appeal, we note that this reference claims priority to United States Patent
Application 08/618,522, which was refiled as continuation-in-part application 08/618,522, that
matured into United States Patent 6,143,707, all commonly assigned with the present application.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007