Appeal No. 2003-0802 Page 2
Application No. 09/180,108
INTRODUCTION
All the claims stand rejected over prior art. As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner
relies upon the following references:
Labeque et al. (Labeque) 5,580,486 Dec. 3, 1996
Evers et al. (Evers) 5,707,948 Jan. 13, 1998
(filed Feb. 2, 1996)
The specific rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 14, 15, 18-20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Evers.
2. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Evers in view of Labeque.
Appellants state that claims 16 and 17 as well as claims 22 and 23 should be considered
separately from claims 14, 15 and 18-20 (Brief, p. 2). As claims 16 and 17 are the subject of a
separate rejection, we will consider those claims separately. We will not consider claims 22 and
23 separately as no separate arguments in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(2000) are
contained in the Brief. Claims 22 and 23 will, therefore, stand or fall with claim 14, the claim
we select to represent the issues on appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000). In consideration of the
second rejection, we select claim 16 to represent the issues on appeal.
Claims 14 and 16 read as follows:
14. A hard surface cleaning composition comprising
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007