Appeal 2006-2774
Application 10/309,493
representative of each class (“all basic components”) recited in claim 1
(Answer 3-4). The Examiner acknowledges that the Erismann does not
describe the specific polyol (a), surfactant (g), and defoamer (i) which are
recited in claim 1 (Answer 4-6). However, the Examiner contends that it
would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to have selected
compounds within the scope of components (a), (g), and (i) of claim 1.
For component (a), the Examiner asserts that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a mono
pentaerythritol, having four hydroxy groups and a molecular weight of 136,
as the poly of (a) because Erismann “teach[es] that useful polyols include a
combination of (any) compounds containing 2,3,4 hydroxy groups and a
molecular weight of 100-500, e.g. a combination of propylene glycol with
other polyols” (Answer 5).
For component (g), the Examiner asserts that it would have been
obvious to have replaced the surfactant Triton X-100 disclosed in Example 1
of Erismann for the surfactant Triton X-451 in claim 1 because “one of
ordinary skill in the art at would have reasonable expectation of success in
using Triton X45 instead of Triton X100 in Erismann et al since Triton X100
is similar to Triton X45 in structure and composition except for an amount
of ethanol” (Answer 6).
The Examiner also contends that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used
Surfynol DF58 [component (i) of claim 1] instead of Foamaster 111[ ]2 . . .
[as described] in Erismann et al since Nienaber et al teach that Surfynol
1 Recited in claim 1 by its chemical formula, rather than trade name.
2 Id.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013