Appeal 2006-2175
Application 10/122,855
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER OFFSHACK
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 6-13 under § 103(a) over
Offshack. The Examiner stated that Offshack discloses all that is in the
claims, except that the dishwashing detergent composition is in gel or liquid
form (Non-Final Office Action 4-5, mailed April 16, 2004). The Examiner
concluded that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, at the time the invention was made to formulate a liquid or gel-type
dishwashing detergent composition by modifying the amount of water and
sulfate in a detergent composition because the teachings of Offshack . . .
illustrate[s] a dishwashing detergent composition . . . and furthermore
suggest[s] a liquid or gel type detergent composition by providing
motivation to add 42.1% by weight of a balance comprising sulfate and
water” (Non-Final Office Action 5-6, mailed April 16, 2004).
Appellants argue that Offshack is directed to making a “granular”
dishwashing detergent, not a liquid or gel detergent as claimed (Br. 6,
11-12). Appellants further argue that the polyhydroxy compound used by
Offshack in Example II cited by the Examiner is PEG 8000, which is not one
of the listed polyhydroxy compounds in the claims (Br. 7). Appellants
provide additional arguments related to perceived shortcomings of
Offshack’s disclosure.
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection over Offshack.
The Examiner refers to Formulation B in Table 1 as demonstrating a
detergent composition that satisfies the features of Appellants’ claims.
However, Formulation B, as with all the formulations in Table 1, is directed
to a “granular” detergent composition (Offshack, col. 28, ll. 66-67). Given
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013