Appeal 2007-0176
Application 11/050,553
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
WO ‘927 discloses an auxiliary composition in particulate form for
laundering or treating fabrics comprising an admixture of the presently
claimed clay and silicone. Rather, it is Appellants’ principal argument that
the reference fails “to teach, suggest, or recognize the addition of a cationic
polymeric fabric-softening boosting component to a co-particulate admix of
an auxiliary composition (i.e., a fabric treatment composition) with clay and
silicone, as required by the instant claims” (principal Br. 8, last sentence).
While Appellants recognize that WO ‘927 discloses the addition of
Appellants’ preferred cationic polymeric fabric-softening boosting
component, guar gum, to the detergent composition, Appellants maintain
that the reference teaches adding the guar gum as a soil release agent to the
detergent composition, but not to the fabric treatment composition.
Appellants contend that the fabric treatment composition of the reference “is
a distinct component of the detergent composition” (principal Br. 9, first
paragraph).
At the outset, we note that the “comprising” language of claim 1 on
appeal does not preclude the presence of a detergent composition in
admixture with the recited clay, silicone, and cationic polymeric fabric-
softening boosting component. Hence, we find that compositions within the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007