Appeal No. 2006-2581 Page 5
Application No. 10/029,322
Appellants emphasize Romano’s statement that “the sum of R1, R2 and R3
radicals is from 14 to 24 carbon atoms,” noting that the R1, R2 and R3 radicals in
glycine betaine have a total of 3 carbon atoms. See the Appeal Brief, pages 7-8.
We agree with Appellants that, when the cited references are considered as a
whole, they would not have suggested using glycine betaine in Mandell’s absorbent
product. Both Mandell and Romano suggest using betaine surfactants in their
respective products. See Mandell, page 16 (“Examples of amphoteric surfactants that
can be included in the present composition include . . . betaines. . . . Examples of
specific amphoteric surfactants include . . . cocamidopropyl betaine, lauramidopropyl
betaine, coco/oleamidopropyl betaine, coco betaine, [and] oleyl betaine.”); Romano,
page 7 (“[T]he compositions according to the present invention comprise a betaine or a
sulfobetaine surfactant. . . . [S]aid amphoteric surfactants have a twofold action.”). In
this context, Romano discloses that preferred betaine surfactants correspond to the
formula reproduced above “wherein the sum of R1, R2 and R3 radicals is from 14 to 24
carbon atoms.”
The examiner has provided no evidence that those skilled in the art would have
considered glycine betaine to be a “betaine surfactant.” As Appellants have pointed out,
those skilled in the art would expect that a betaine surfactant would have at least one
long alkyl chain as one of the R groups. Consistent with Appellants’ position, all of the
betaine surfactants specifically named by Mandell and Romano appear to have an alkyl
chain of at least ten carbons.
In addition, those skilled in the art would recognize that compounds act as
surfactants because they have both polar and nonpolar regions. Charged groups, such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007