Appeal No. 2007-0294 Page 4
Application No. 11/050,224
Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-17 and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Brockett.
Brockett discloses a fabric care composition comprising an anti-wrinkle
agent for conferring softness and anti-wrinkle benefits to a fabric treated with it.
Brockett at 4, ll. 1-31. The anti-wrinkle agent can comprise “a functionalised oil”
which is combined with “a solid carrier selected from clays, zeolites, sugar or
derivatives thereof, solid salts, starch or derivatives thereof, and mixtures thereof
to form an admixture.” Id. at 5, ll. 27-30. A functionalized oil and clay are
preferred because they “impart unexpected softness benefits to fabrics treated with
such compositions.” Id. at 6, ll. 15-28. The functionalized oil of Brockett can be a
silicon oil, including polydimethylsiloxane (“PDMS”), which is utilized as a
wrinkle reduction agent in Brockett’s specific examples. Id. at 9, l. 22; 13, ll.
16-27; 32, ll. 10-15. In addition to the functionalized oil and clay, surfactants
(17, l. 30 to 19, l2), flocculating agents (30, ll. 11-13), and carbonate salts (9: 8-12)
can also be present in Brockett’s fabric care composition.
Claims 1-9, 12-16, and 19-23
The Examiner asserts that Brockett teaches components (a) through (f) of
claim 1 in quantities which overlap with the recited amounts. See Answer 3-5.
The Examiner concludes that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie
inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919
F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed Cir. 1990).” Answer 5. With the exception of
claim 11 (see infra p. 9), Appellants do not challenge this conclusion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013