Appeal 2007-0176
Application 11/050,553
scope of claim 1 include those comprising a detergent composition, clay,
silicone, and a cationic polymeric fabric-softening boosting component, as
taught in the reference. Moreover, we fully concur with the Examiner that
WO ‘927, at page 17, fourth and fifth paragraphs, clearly teaches the fabric
treatment composition in granular form as an integral part of an applied
detergent composition. While Appellants argue that the reference teaches an
admixture of detergent compounds, not detergent compositions and fabric
treatment composition, we note that the last paragraph of page 17 of the
reference teaches the provision of granular detergent compositions that
include the detergent compounds. We are satisfied that the reference
disclosure fairly teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art that the detergent
composition, comprising detergent compounds and additives like guar gum,
can be applied in admixture with the fabric treatment composition.
Appellants have advanced no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have interpreted the “detergent compositions” to not include the guar
gum additive disclosed by the reference.
Furthermore, since it has been generally held that it is a matter of
prima facie obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the order
of mixing various components of a composition,1 we find that it would have
been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the guar
gum of WO ‘927 to the fabric treatment composition before adding it to the
granular detergent compounds while integrally preparing the mixture of
1 See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007