Appeal No. 2007-0360 Page 7
Application No. 11/050,001
solid particulate laundry detergent composition with a different
property characteristic, namely improved fabric softening
performance.
Reply Br. 2: 31 to 3:9.
We do not find that specification supports their arguments. On page 3, ll.
16-20, of the specification, it is stated:
The Inventors have surprisingly found that both polydimethylsiloxane
and clay can be admixed together and incorporated into a solid
particulate laundry detergent composition to provide a good fabric-
softening performance by selectively modifying the amounts of other
specific components that need to be present in the composition.
Here, the specification indicates that the “good fabric-softening
performance” is achieved by “selectively modifying the amounts of other specific
components” present in the composition. It does not attribute this “good”
performance to the presence of pre-emulsified PDMS as asserted by Appellants.
Appellants also point to p. 6, ll. 25-27, of the specification:
The polydimethylsiloxane is preferably in pre-emulsified form,
this is especially beneficial because the polydimethylsiloxane is
admixed with the clay; the processability of the particulate admixture
is improved when the silicone is in pre-emulsified form.
The latter refers to the benefit of pre-emulsified PDMS in improving
“processability,” apparently a reference to the process which is used to produce the
claimed “solid particulate laundry detergent composition.” However, there is no
indication that, as stated by Appellants, pre-emulsified PDMS confers “a different
property characteristic” on the final detergent product, itself. Reply Br. 3.
Because the Examiner reasonably inferred that the PDMS is present in the
laundry detergent in the same form present in Brockett’s composition, the burden
shifted to Appellants to provide evidence to overcome this presumption. We can
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013