Appeal No. 2006-2581 Page 4
Application No. 10/029,322
al. as disclosing long-chained betaine surfactants, not short-chained glycine betaine.”
Reply Brief, page 2 (footnote omitted).
We agree with Appellants that the examiner has not adequately explained how
the cited references would have led those skilled in the art to combine glycine betaine
with the absorbent product disclosed by Mandell. The examiner relies on the following
passage from Romano for the suggestion of glycine betaine:
Suitable betaine/sulphobetaine surfactants to be used in the compositions
of the present invention are the betaine/sulphobetaine and betaine-like
detergents. . . . Preferred betaine or sulphobetaine surfactants have the
formula
wherein R1 is an alkyl radical containing from 1 to 24 carbon atoms,
preferably from 8 to 18, and more preferably from 12 to 14, wherein R2
and R3 contain from 1 to 3 carbon atoms, and preferably 1 carbon atom,
wherein n is an integer of from 1 to 10, preferably from 1 to 6 and more
preferably is 1, Y is selected from the group consisting of carboxyl and
sulfonyl radicals and wherein the sum of R1, R2 and R3 radicals is from
14 to 24 carbon atoms, or mixtures thereof.
Examples of particularly suitable betaine surfactants include C12-C18
alkyl dimethyl betaine such as the coconut betaine and C10-C16 alkyl
dimethyl betaine such as the lauryl betaine.
Page 7, line 30 to page 8, line 20
Romano’s formula would correspond to glycine betaine if each of R1, R2, and R3
was an alkyl radical with one carbon (i.e, CH3), n was 1, and Y was a carboxyl radical.
The examiner argues that Romano’s formula would have suggested glycine betaine to
those skilled in the art because “it is the simplest of all the compounds disclosed by
Romano.” Examiner’s Answer, page 7.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007