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...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007