Appeal No. 2003-0802 Page 4
Application No. 09/180,108
short chain surfactants but with a C11-C24 alkyl chain (Evers, col. 3, ll. 37-39). Evers also
discloses preferred short chain:long chain concentration ratios (Evers, col. 3, ll. 43-49).
The Examiner finds that Evers describes the use of the ingredients (c), (d), and (b) in
overlapping concentration ranges (Answer, pp. 3-4). It is, by now, well settled that where the
prior art teaches the components of the claim in overlapping ranges a prima facie case of
obviousness is established. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382
(Fed. Cir. 2003) and the case cited therein.
Appellants argue that they are claiming specific ratios of long chain anionic surfactants to
long chain nonionic surfactants to address the problem of imparting shine while keeping the
surface streak-free and Evers provides no suggestion or motivation to use such long chain
surfactants in such specific ratios (Brief, p. 3). The problem with this argument is that claim 14
is not limited to long chain combinations.
Evers suggests the use of the surfactant combinations meeting the requirements of claim
14, parts (c) and (d). The C9 and C10 alkyl alkoxylate short chain nonionic surfactants of Evers
meet the requirements of part (c) of claim 14 (Evers, col. 2, ll. 60-67). In (c), the carbon chain
length can be anywhere from 9 to 18. Evers also suggests the use of the long chain C12-C14
ethoxylated alkyl sulfates of (d) (Evers, col. 2, ll. 31-32 and ll. 41-43 in combination with col. 3,
ll. 37-39).
Contrary to the argument of Appellants, Evers also provides a suggestion to use the
surfactants in the claimed concentration ratios. Evers discloses a preferred minimum ratio of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007