Appeal 2007-1156
Application 10/459,070
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Trinh, Franklin, Ha, and
Motley.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to
determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established,
we consider the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17 (1996); (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present.
The Examiner’s rejection is set forth at pages 4-14 of the Examiner’s
Answer. We find, however, that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness, and the rejection is reversed.
Specifically, the Examiner relies on Ha and Motley to meet the claim
limitation of a crystalline gel structurant comprising a surfactant and a co-
surfactant, wherein the structurant is anionic and the surfactant comprises a
“C10-C22 fatty acid and a salt of the fatty acid, the fatty acid and salt being
present in a ratio from 100:l to 1:100 and the co-surfactant comprising a C10-
C22 fatty alcohol and a C1-C200 ester of a C10-C22 fatty acid, the alcohol and
ester being present in a weight ratio from 100:1 to 1:100.”
The anionic surfactant-co-surfactant system thus requires four
components: 1) a C10-C22 fatty acid; 2) a salt of the fatty acid; 3) a C10-C22
fatty alcohol; and 4) a C1-C200 ester of a C10-C22 fatty acid.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013