Appeal No. 2005-0360
Application No. 09/896,853
consideration to the examiner's separate § 102 rejections of
claim 11.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we find that the examiner's § 102
rejections are well founded.
We consider first the examiner's rejection over Pruehs. At
the outset, it is significant to observe that claim 11 on appeal
defines a composition comprising a hydroxy mixed ether and the
recited amount of water. While the claim describes the
composition as an aqueous laundry detergent, appellants point to
no specific passage in their specification which discloses that
the composition must contain anything other than a hydroxy mixed
ether and water in order to function as a laundry detergent. The
specification discloses that "[t]he preparations according to the
invention may of course also contain other auxiliaries and
additives typical of liquid detergents such as, for example,
builders, polymers, bleaching agents, bleach activators, enzymes,
enzyme stabilizers, redeposition inhibitors, optical brighteners,
hydrotropes, perfumes, electrolyte salts and the like . . ."
(page 14, lines 20-24, emphasis added). Hence, although
appellants' laundry detergent may comprise a variety of additives
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007