Appeal 2007-2814
Application 10/215,174
Claims 8, 14, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, and 34-40 directly or indirectly
depend from claim 1. We have already concluded that the Examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case that Raymond renders claim 1 obvious. The
Examiner relies on Frazier, Benjamin, Cowan, Ito, Fisher, and Stanislowski
for limitations recited in dependent claims, and has not pointed to any
disclosure in these references that would make up for the deficiencies in
Raymond discussed above. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has not set
forth a prima facie case that claims 8, 14, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, and 34-40
would have been obvious. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejections
of these claims.
SUMMARY
The Examiner has not shown that the claims would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the applied references. We
therefore reverse the rejections of claims 1-17 and 19-59.
REVERSED
Ssc
THE CLOROX COMPANY
P.O. BOX 24305
OAKLAND, CA 94623-1305
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013