Ex Parte Blyth et al - Page 2



                Appeal 2007-0176                                                                               
                Application 11/050,553                                                                         

                      (ii)  silicone;                                                                          
                      (iii) a cationic polymeric fabric-softening boosting component; and                      
                      (iv) optionally, one or more adjunct components;                                         
                      wherein the auxiliary composition has a Flowability Index (FI) of                        
                from about 0.5 to about 21, wherein                                                            
                      FI = P x R                                                                               
                      wherein, P = the weight average primary particle size of the clay                        
                expressed in micrometers, and R = the weight ratio of silicone to clay.                        
                      The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of                          
                obviousness:                                                                                   
                Marteleur WO 92/07927 May 14, 1992                                                             
                      Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an auxiliary, particulate                   
                composition that is used to launder or treat fabrics, and the laundry detergent                
                composition comprising the auxiliary composition.  The auxiliary                               
                composition comprises a co-particulate admix of (a) clay, (b) silicone, and                    
                (c) a cationic polymeric fabric-softening boosting component, such as                          
                cationic guar gum.                                                                             
                      Appealed claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15, 16, and 18-25 stand rejected under                       
                35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO ‘927.                                         
                      Appellants set forth separate arguments only for claims 15, 16, 24,                      
                and 25.  Accordingly, claims 2, 4-13, and 18-23 stand or fall together with                    
                claim 1.                                                                                       
                      We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for                            
                patentability.  However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner                        
                that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary                     
                                                      2                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007