1 performed from other than the final rinse cycle." Specification, page 5,
2 ¶ 00013, lines 10-12.
3 Composition claims 1-11 stand or fall together. Claim 12 is argued
4 separately. Brief for Appellants, page 11 (filed 15 March 2004).
5 The Primary Examiner rejected claims 1-12 as being anticipated under
6 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over European Patent Application 0 852 022 A2,
7 published 01 July 1998.
8 The European Patent Application (EPA) names applicants as
9 inventors. Applicants in the Brief for Appellants do not argue that the
10 European Patent Application fails to describe applicants' composition. In
11 particular, applicants do not tell us why or how the Primary Examiner is
12 supposed to have erred in rejecting composition claims 1-11. 37 CFR
13 § 41.67(c)(1)(vii) (a brief must contains the contentions with respect to each
14 issue). Accordingly, there is no basis for reversing the decision to reject
15 those claims.
16 With respect to method claim 12, it is argued that the Primary
17 Examiner erroneously found that EPA describes a process of using the
18 composition in all phases of a rinse cycle. Brief for Appellants, page 12.
19 We are told that the Primary Examiner's "reading of the art is simply
20 strained …" Id. Also, the Primary Examiner is said to have overlooked
21 clear advantages of using the composition in the penultimate rinse stage as
22 opposed to a final rinse stage. Id. EPA is said to talk "only of a final rinse
23 step (singular not plural)." Id. Without explaining why, applicants maintain
24 that they "have provided a showing that the stage of introduction does make
25 a difference" and that the Primary Examiner's rejection is based on
26 "hindsight." Id. We proceed to an analysis of EPA based on the arguments
27 which are presented on a single page of the Brief for Appellant (page 12).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007