Appeal No. 2004-0149
Application No. 09/803,612
Appellants argue that not all laundry contains fadeable dyes
but a very significant portion of the laundry is simply white
fabric (Brief, page 12). Appellants further argue that fadeable
dyes are not ubiquitous in laundry and in fact bleach systems are
usually avoided when laundering such fabrics (id.). These
arguments are also not persuasive. Appellants apparently admit
that fabrics with fadeable dyes are a portion of laundry, even if
not a significant portion. Accordingly, fabrics with fadeable dyes
are a species of “laundry” (see Petering, Schaumann and
Sivaranakrishnan, supra). Additionally, we note that Appel teaches
that bleaching compositions are employed in “dye transfer
inhibition,” thus teaching the safe use of the disclosed bleaching
system with fabrics bearing fadeable dyes (col. 19, ll. 19-20).
Therefore, we determine that Appel describes every limitation of
the method of claim 1 on appeal within the meaning of section 102.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Appel.
C. Other Issues
In the event of further or continuing prosecution before the
examiner, the examiner should review the various applications and
patents containing similar claimed subject matter that were the
basis of obviousness-type double patenting rejections (Paper No. 4,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007