Ex Parte Chapple et al - Page 4




          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