Appeal No. 2007-0360 Page 11
Application No. 11/050,001
Claims 17, 25, and 26
Claims 17, 25, and 26, which are dependent on claim 1, further define the
PDMS to have a specific viscosity (claims 17 and 25) and average primary droplet
size (claim 26). The Examiner states that the claims “are drawn to the physical
characteristics of a starting material which is no longer present in that form in the
claimed final product.” Answer 6. Appellants argue that Brockett does not
disclose or suggest a detergent composition comprising pre-emulsified PDMS
having the claimed properties. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6-7. They assert that “one of
ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the viscosity of a particular ingredient to
the claimed detergent composition will provide an effect and contribute to the
physical properties of the composition.” Reply Br. 7.
As previously discussed, we find that the Examiner reasonably presumed
that pre-emulsified PDMS is not present in the claimed final product. Appellants
have not provided evidence to support their assertions that the “viscosity” will
“effect and contribute to the physical properties of the composition.”
Consequently, we affirm the rejection of claims 17, 25, and 26.
OTHER ISSUES
If prosecution of this application is resumed, we suggest that the Examiner
consider U.S. Pat. 6,020,303 which was cited in the specification on p. 8, l. 24.
It discloses combinations of alkyl sulfate and alkyl benzene sulfonate surfactants
(Col. 6, ll. 40-60) that may be pertinent to instant claim 10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013