Appeal 2007-1205
Application 10/501,343
for such a modification so as to arrive at the features of rejected claims 6 and
11, which are incorporated therein by virtue of their dependency from
claim 1. Given our determination above, respecting the lack of anticipation
by Gonzales-Blanco, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claims 6 and 11, on this record, in as much as this 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 grounds of rejection. Appellants contend that the claims of copending
Application No. 10/515,345 do not suggest the less than 10 weight percent
maximum for the anionic surface active additive component of
representative claim 1. The Examiner, on the other hand, basically
maintains that the weight percent range of anionic surface active additive
required by representative claim 1 essentially abuts the greater than 10
weight percent lower end point of the range of weight percent for the anionic
surface-active additive recited in claim 1 of the copending application.
Given that adjacency of the here-claimed range and that in the copending
application claim 1, the Examiner asserts that representative claim 1 is prima
facie obvious over the claims of the copending application.
Therefore, the issue before us with respect to this rejection is:
Whether Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection? We answer that
question in the negative and we shall affirm the Examiner’s obviousness-
type double patenting rejection, on this record.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013