Appeal 2007-1396
Application 10/375,235
claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 through 18, and 20 provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 through 202 of co-pending
Application 10/375,235 (Answer 3; Office action 8).
With respect to the grounds of rejection under § 103(a), Appellants
argue the claims in each ground of rejection as a group. Br. in entirety.
Thus, we decide this appeal based on claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2005).
The issues in this appeal with respect to the grounds of rejection under
§ 103(a) are whether the Examiner has carried the burden of establishing a
prima facie case in each of the grounds.
The plain language of claim 20 specifies an aqueous bleaching
medium, the composition comprising at least any amount of any organic
ligand which can form a complex with any transition metal and can bleach a
substrate via atmospheric oxygen; any amount of an oxidizable precursor
selected from the group consisting of a linoleic acid or its metal salt, and a
generating system for producing linoleic acid or its salt in an aqueous
medium; any enzyme for oxidizing the oxidizable precursor to form a
hydroperoxide in situ; and any oily stain containing substrate; and wherein
the aqueous bleaching medium is substantially devoid of peroxygen bleach
or a peroxy-based or peroxyl-generating bleach system. The transitional
term “comprising” opens the claim to encompass compositions which
contain any manner and amount of additional ingredients. See, e.g., Exxon
Chem. Pats., Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555, 35 USPQ2d 1801,
2 The Examiner states the claims in Application 10/375,238 as “claims
1-21.” Answer 3. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 through 20 are presently of record in
Application 10/375,328.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013