Appeal 2007-1397
Application 10/375,238
1. A bleaching composition comprising:
(a) an organic ligand which forms a complex with a transition metal
for bleaching a substrate with a peroxygen bleach or source thereof,
(b) 1-35% by weight sodium percarbonate,
(c) an oxidizable precursor selected from the group consisting of:
(i) an unsaturated acid or alkali metal thereof; and
(ii) a generating system for producing an unsaturated acid in
situ in an aqueous medium, the system being derived from lipase and an
oily stain-containing substrate,
(d) lipoxygenase for oxidizing the oxidizable precursor to form a
hydroperoxide in situ.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Baeck WO 95/26393 A1 Oct. 5, 1995
Hermant WO 97/48787 A1 Dec. 24, 1997
Perkins WO 00/60045 A1 Oct. 12, 2000
“Lipoxygenases,” PROMISE mirror: http://metallo.scripps.edu/PROMISE/
(Nov. 11, 1998) (Promise Mirror).
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) advanced on appeal (Br. 9):
claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 through 20 as unpatentable over Baeck in view of
Hermant and Promise Mirror (Answer 3; Office action 41); and
claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 through 20 as unpatentable over Perkins in view of
Baeck (Answer 3; Office action 6).
The Examiner also advanced on appeal these grounds of rejection, and
observes Appellants have not requested review of these grounds or presented
argument with respect thereto (Answer 3):
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement (Answer 3; Office action 2); and
1 The Answer does not set forth the grounds of rejection (Answer 3). We
find the grounds stated in the Office Action.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013