Appeal No. 2004-1067
Application No. 09/773,292
Luttringer’s formula (5) dye corresponds to the appealed claim
25 formula (3) dye and that Luttringer’s formula (7) dye
corresponds to the claim 25 formula (2) dye. According to the
examiner, it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary
skill to combine patentee’s formula (5) dye with his formula (7)
dye, thereby achieving the appealed independent claim dye
mixture, in view of Luttringer’s teaching of “dyeing or printing
cellulosic textile fibre materials . . . from an aqueous liquor
with at least one red or reddish brown dyeing dye . . . and at
least one yellow or orange dyeing dye . . . and at least one blue
dyeing dye of formula” (emphasis ours) (5), (6) or (7) (see the
abstract; also see the paragraph bridging column 1 and 2 as well
as patent claim 1). We share the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness and her rationale in support thereof.
The appellants concede that “[o]ne could argue that the
wording at least one may suggest to use two or more than two
dyes” (brief, page 9, first full paragraph). Nevertheless, it is
the appellants’ contention that “the teachings of the patent
would not have motivated the artisan to select blue dyeing dye
mixtures in general, much less the specific mixtures containing
the narrow genuses of claims 26 and 27" (id.). As correctly
explained by the examiner, however, the artisan would have been
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007