Appeal No. 2005-0112 Page 2
Application No. 09/737,004
INTRODUCTION
The Examiner maintains rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Heiler et al. (Heiler) WO 97/43,373 Nov. 20, 1997
(Pub. Int’l. Application)
Hu et al. (Hu) WO 00/37,049 Jun. 29, 2000
(Pub. Int’l. Application)
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heiler.
Appellant groups the claims separately, but Appellant does not provide separate
arguments for each group in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8), the rule in force at
the time the Brief was filed.1 We, therefore, select a single claim to decide the issues for each
rejection. We select claim 1. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An aqueous composition for cleaning and wetting a contact lens comprising:
(a) a non-amine polyethyleneoxy-containing material having an HLB value of at least
about 18;
(b) a first non-ionic surface active agent having cleaning activity for contact lens deposits
that comprises a poloxamine;
(c) a second non-ionic surface active agent having cleaning activity for contact lens
deposits and that comprises a non-poloxamine surface active agent with an HLB value less than
that of said non-amine polyethyleneoxy-containing material; and
1Note that effective September 13, 2004, 37 CFR § 1.192 has been replaced by 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(69 Fed.
Reg. 49960 (Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sept. 7, 2004)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007