Appeal No. 2006-1065
Application No. 10/296,231
soil release polymers, enzmes, complexing agents, corrosion inhibitors, waxes,
silicone oils, light protection agents, dyes, solvents, hydrotropes, thickeners and
alkanolamines, and
(d) water to make up 100% by weight.
The examiner does not rely upon prior art in the rejection of the appealed claims.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a composition comprising a
cationically modified, particulate, hydrophobic polymer, water, up to 20% of at least one
of the recited water-soluble salts, and up to 80% of various additives. A number of
claims on appeal recite the negative limitation that “the particulate hydrophobic polymers
contain no active substance entrapped therein, distributed throughout, absorbed or
adsorbed.”
Appealed claims 11-14, 17, and 20-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, description requirement. Claims 11-21 stand rejected under the judicially-
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims of U.S. Patent No.
6,908,490. Also, claims 11-31 stand rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims of U.S. Patent No. 6, 911,054.1
Appellants have not separately argued any particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, the groups of claims separately rejected by the examiner stand or fall
together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments for patentability.
However, we find that the examiner’s rejections are well-founded and in accord with
current patent jurisprudence. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections.
1 The examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (see page 3 of Answer).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007