Appeal No. 2005-1827
Application No. 10/227,761
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive for the reasons stated
above. Appellants argue that a composition comprising one or more of the
enumerated disinfecting agents does not necessarily fall within the scope of the
claimed invention. Appellants have not argued that the compounds identified
by the examiner as meeting the present claim limitations are not present in
amounts which have been specified by the specification as producing the
claimed result. We note that Appellants argue that Hartshorn teaches
ingredients which are potentially damaging to materials. (Brief, p. 13).
Appellants’ discussion of these potentially damaging materials are not
persuasive because Appellants have not affirmatively established that these
components are present in amounts which necessarily produce damaging
effects in the compositions described by Hartshorn. A person of ordinary skill in
the art formulating the composition of Hartshorn would have suitable skill to
select the appropriate amounts and components for producing a laundry
composition which would not have damaging results.
The Examiner rejected claims 82-84 under Section 102(b) over Murch.
Here again the Examiner has determined that Murch discloses the claimed
benefit agent as required by the claimed invention. Appellants admit that the
ingredients of Murch overlap the claimed invention. (Brief, p. 15). However,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007