Appeal 2007-0499
Application 10/515,345
that is required in order to arrive at subject matter on which independent
appealed claim 1 would read.
Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection before us.
Turning to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4, 9, and
11, the Examiner relies on Gonzales-Blanco for the reasons set forth in the
anticipation rejection. The Examiner does not otherwise explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found Gonzales-Blanco teaches or
suggests a pigment preparation corresponding to the independent claim 1
features as required by reference in claims 4, 9, and 11. Nor has the
Examiner proffered any other logical reason for such a modification so as to
arrive at these required features of rejected claims 4, 9, and 11. Given our
determination above, respecting the lack of anticipation by Gonzales-
Blanco, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 4, 9, and 11, on this record, inasmuch as the obviousness rejection is
premised on that erroneous anticipation determination of the Examiner. See
the “Other Issue” section below.
Concerning the provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejection, Appellants argue the rejected claims as a group. Thus, we select
claim 1 as the representative claim on which we shall decide this appeal as
to this ground of rejection. Appellants contend that the claims of copending
Application No. 10/501,343 do not suggest that the anionic surface active
additive component is present in an amount above the 10 weight percent
minimum for the anionic surface active additive component (B) of
representative claim 1 and meeting the fractional proviso of representative
claim1. The Examiner, on the other hand, basically maintains that the
weight percent range of anionic surface active additive required by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013