Appeal No. 2007-0360 Page 10
Application No. 11/050,001
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, as
mentioned in the rejection. Polyacrylates are polymeric polycarboxylates.
Determining the flocculance-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.
We concur with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious to the skilled worker at the time the invention was made. Brockett
teaches that the flocculating agent can be “up to 10% by weight, based on the
weight of the clay.” Brockett at 30, l. 15. With a composition having about 10%
by weight of clay (id. at 6, l. 30 to 7, l. 1), this would mean about 1% by weight of
a polycarboxylate, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 0.1wt% to
about 5wt%.” When there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed
invention overlaps or falls within that range, there is a presumption of obviousness.
In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225,
1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the foregoing reason, we affirm the rejection of claim
11.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013