Appeal No. 2003-0802 Page 8
Application No. 09/180,108
Examiner found that Evers lists alkyl ether sulfates in the short chain list (Answer, p. 3). That
surfactant is an ethoxylated alkyl sulfate and, thus, Evers suggests the use of long chain
ethoxylated alkyl sulfates.
Appellants also argue that Labeque does not disclose the specific combination of organic
polycarboxylates and carbonates which are the builders of the rejected claims (Brief, p. 5).
There is no dispute that Labeque describes both polycarboxylates and carbonates as conventional
builders. Using the two conventional builders for that function would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072
(CCPA 1980)(“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by
the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be
used for the very same purpose.”).
Again, we note that Appellants base no arguments upon objective evidence of non-
obviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 which has not
been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14-20, 22, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14, 15, 18-20, 22, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007