Appeal No. 2007-0360 Page 9
Application No. 11/050,001
We agree with the Examiner that choice of surfactants would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
As stated by the Examiner, Brockett discloses the specifically claimed surfactants,
as well as mixtures of surfactants, albeit not a mixture of the two which are
instantly claimed. Answer 3. Brockett also states that “[m]any suitable detergent
active compounds [surfactants] are available and fully described in the literature.”
Brockett at 17, ll. 24-25. We infer from this statement, and similar disclosure in
the instant specification (8:1-28), that surfactants and their cleaning properties
were well known in the prior art. Consequently, it appears that all Appellants have
done is to select a combination of known 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 the person 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 (17, l. 15 to 19, l. 25), and those in Appellants’
own application (8:1-28), we conclude that this is the type of choice a skilled
worker routinely would have made in formulating a detergent at the time the
invention was made. 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013