Appeal No. 2003-0955
Application No. 09/406,645
substrate using TMAH and glycol ethers in column 2, at lines 52-
60 of Sato.
Regarding Roscoe, appellants assert that Roscoe does
not cure the deficiencies of Sato. Appellants state that
Roscoe does not disclose di- or tri-propylene glycol alkyl
ethers. Appellants state that the Roscoe composition must
contain a monohydroxy alcohol, an amine, an aqueous
ammonium hydroxide, and a detergent. Appellants also state
that Roscoe’s composition requires an amine and monohydroxy
alcohol to be used in the cleaning concentrate.
As stated on page 6 of our decision, the examiner relied
upon Roscoe for teaching the use of surface active agents to
enhance the cleaning properties of a composition that includes
glycol ether. The examiner determined, and we agree, that
Roscoe’s teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art to use a surface active agent to enhance cleaning
properties of the composition of Sato. See column 3, lines 9-35
of Roscoe. We note that the prior art can be modified or
combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as one
of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation of success. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, appellants’
arguments do not convince us that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success of
achieving the benefits of enhanced cleaning properties by adding
the surfactant of Roscoe to the composition of Sato.
In view of the above, we do not find in the Request any
argument convincing us of error in the conclusion we reached in
our decision.
Accordingly, appellants’ Request for Rehearing is denied.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007