Appeal No. 2007-0294 Page 9
Application No. 11/050,224
surfactants for their known cleaning properties. An obviousness determination
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires consideration of “the scope and contents of the
prior art” in the context of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1966). Based on Brockett’s disclosure that it is
conventional to include surfactants in laundry detergents (at 17, ll. 15-27), and
similar disclosure in Appellants’ own application (7: 25 to 9: 18), we conclude that
the choice of the particular surfactants to include in a laundry detergent was
commensurate with the level of ordinary skill in the art. We affirm the rejection of
claim 10.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1. It further requires that the composition
comprise “from about 0.1wt% to about 5wt% polymeric polycarboxylate.”
Brockett discloses at 30, ll. 14-21:
Flocculating agents may be present in the compositions of the
invention in amounts of up to 10% by weight, based on the weight of
the clay. Suitable flocculating agents include polymers, for example
long chain polymers and copolymers comprising repeating units
derived from monomers such as ethylene oxide, acrylamide, acrylic
acid, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate, vinyl alcohol, vinyl
pyrrolidone, ethylene imine and mixtures thereof.
The Examiner asserts “polyacrylates are taught to be useful flocculants. . . .
Polyacrylates are polymeric polycarboxylates. Determining the flocculant-effective
amount of a disclosed flocculant would be an obvious expedient.” Answer 6.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s assertion that the claimed
polycarboxylates correspond to the polyacrylates described by Brockett. However,
they argue, but offer no explanation, that Brockett does not “teach, suggest or
recognize a detergent composition comprising from about 0.1wt% to about 5wt%
polymeric polycarboxylate.” Br. 10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013