Appeal No. 2004-0149 Application No. 09/803,612 appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below. OPINION A. The Rejection over WO ‘628 or WO ‘787 The examiner finds that both WO ‘628 and WO ‘787 disclose bleach catalysts within the scope of the claimed bleach catalyst, where these metal complex catalysts activate hydrogen peroxide, peroxy acids, or molecular oxygen, useful for the washing and bleaching of laundry (see Paper No. 4, pages 6-8). The examiner asserts that there would be no difference between bleaching using molecular oxygen as taught by these references and the use of atmospheric oxygen as recited by the claims on appeal (id. at page 7; Answer, page 4). The examiner also construes the claimed term “substantially devoid” of peroxy-bleaching agents as allowing up to 50% by molar weight on an oxygen basis of peroxygen bleach or peroxy-based or -generating systems (Answer, page 4, citing the specification, page 23, ll. 20-30).2 The examiner further finds 1(...continued) No. 4 dated Jun. 19, 2001, as clarified in the action dated Dec. 4, 2001, Paper No. 9, and as incorporated into Paper No. 17 (see page 4). 2We do not find appellants’ definition of “substantially devoid” on page 23 of appellants’ specification. We do find the (continued...) 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007