Appeal No. 2005-1827
Application No. 10/227,761
suitable for producing the claimed effect. Appellants have not directed us to
evidence that the composition of Angell produces wash related damage to
shoes. Furthermore, Appellants have not specifically disclosed which
components of the Angell composition increase wash related damage to shoes.
Appellants’ discussion of bleach containing detergents appearing on page 10
of the brief have been considered. The Examiner has asserted on page 8 of the
Answer that Angell does not comprise chlorine containing bleach. Appellants
have not refuted the Examiner’s position in responsive briefing.
The Examiner rejected claims 80 and 81 under Section 102(b) over
Hartshorn. The Appellants present essentially the same arguments for
patentability of the claimed subject matter discussed above. Specifically
Appellants’ argue that the composition limitation “formulated so that any
damage as a result of washing one or more shoes with or in an aqueous
medium with application of the treating composition is reduced as compared
to washing the one or more shoes with or in an aqueous medium without
application of the treating composition” has not been afforded patentable
weight by the Examiner (Brief, p. 11). Appellants also argue, (Brief, p. 12) that
Hartshorn would not enable a practitioner to select ingredients to comport the
wash related damage reduction limitations of the claimed invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007