Appeal 2007-1397
Application 10/375,238
claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 through 20 provisionally rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 2, 4, 5, 7,8, 11 through 18, and 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 1 specifies a bleaching composition
comprising at least any amount of any organic ligand which can form a
complex with any transition metal and can bleach a substrate with a
peroxygen bleach or source thereof; any amount of an oxidizable precursor
selected from the group consisting of any unsaturated or its alkali metal salt,
and any system derived in any manner from any lipase and any oily stain-
containing substrate for generating an unsaturated acid in any aqueous
medium; any amount of any lipoxygenase for oxidizing the oxidizable
precursor to form any amount of any hydroperoxide in situ; and the stated
amount of sodium percarbonate. 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, 1802 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The
2 The Examiner states the claims in Application 10/375,235 as including
claim 1. Answer 3. Claim 1 has been canceled in that Application.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013