Appeal 2007-1156
Application 10/459,070
the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does. This is so because inventions in
most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since
uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be
combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
The only reason provided by the Examiner to combine a fatty acid and
the fatty acid salt with the structurants already provided by Ha is that they
are all known structurants. Ha, however, appears to specifically neutralize
the acid with an equimolar amount of sodium hydroxide, and the Examiner
provides no reason why one of ordinary skill would have altered the system
of Ha to include both a fatty acid and fatty acid salt. The Examiner has thus
not met the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, and we
are compelled to reverse the rejection.
In addition, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 13-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kono, Franklin, Ha and Motley,
and the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the combination of Inagawa, Franklin, Ha and Motley, rely 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 “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.” Thus, these rejections are also reversed for the
reasons set forth above.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013