1 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962) and In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 197
2 USPQ 5 (CCPA 1978).
3 Contrary to applicants' argument, the Primary Examiner's reading of
4 EPA is not strained. Instead substantial evidence supports the Primary
5 Examiner's finding that EPA describes the use of the composition in a
6 known prior art rinse cycle, including a penultimate rinse cycle. Also, the
7 Primary Examiner also did not improperly fail to accord proper weight to an
8 alleged showing that use of the composition in the penultimate step "does
9 make a difference." Whether the alleged showing is relevant or irrelevant
10 with respect to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is not material with
11 respect to anticipation. Cf. In re Schaumann, supra.
12 E. Order
13 Upon consideration of the record set out in Part B, and for the reasons
14 given, it is
15 ORDERED that the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting
16 claims 1-12 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007