Ex Parte Weber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2017

12955400 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/955,400 11/29/2010 Thomas Weber H08060 7420
49641 7590 05/17/2017
THE DIAL CORPORATION
7201 E. Henkel Way
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255
EXAMINER
TELLER, ROY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
US-STZ-PATENTS-UK-UW@us.henkel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS WEBER, RALF WEIDENHAUPT, and
KARL-HEINZ MAURER1
Appeal 2016-008477
Application 12/955,400
Technology Center 1600
Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, JOHN E. SCHNEIDER,
and RYAN H. FLAX, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHNEIDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to cleaning
compositions, which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as The Dial Corporation. Br.
3.
Appeal 2016-008744
Application 12/955,400
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification describes the use of bacitracin metal complexes as
bleach catalysts. Spec. 111. The complexes can be used in washing or
cleaning agents for materials such as textiles and dishes. Spec. 112.
Claims 1, 9—12, 16, and 35—37 are on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the rejected claims and reads as follows:
1. A laundry agent comprising:
bacitracin,
at least one surfactant,
at least one bleaching agent, and
at least one laundry care ingredient selected from the
group consisting of optical brighteners, discoloration inhibitors,
and anti-graying agents, such that the laundry agent is
formulated for fiber care or color care.
Claimsl, 9-12, 16, and 35—37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)2 as unpatentable over Song3 in view of Panandiker.4
DISCUSSION
Issue
Then issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of
evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the rejected claims would
have been obvious over Song combined with Panandiker.
2 The claims were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for
failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner withdrew that rejection in response to Appellants’ arguments.
Ans. 3.
3 Song, US 2006/0069005 Al, published Mar. 30, 2006 (“Song”).
4 Panandiker et al., US 2007/0293414 Al, published Dec. 20, 2007
(“Panandiker”).
2
Appeal 2016-008744
Application 12/955,400
The Examiner finds Song discloses detergent compositions
comprising bacitracin, a surfactant and a bleaching system such as hydrogen
peroxide. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Panandiker teaches a
detergent composition for improved fabric care comprising laundry adjuncts
such as surfactants, bleaches such as hydrogen peroxide, and germicides. Id.
at 4—5. The Examiner concludes that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the claimed invention was made to combine the
teachings of Song with the teachings of Panandiker, as it would
be expected that a detergent composition of bacitracin would
function with a detergent composition containing a germicide.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
Song and Panandiker because it is understood that similar
compositions would be expected to function in similar ways.
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success
because Song discloses detergent compositions comprising
bacitracin with hydrogen peroxide and Panandiker discloses a
germicide in combination with hydrogen peroxide.
Id. at 5.
Appellants contend that one skilled in the art would not combine the
teachings of Song and Panandiker because they are divergent technologies.
Br. 7.
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, reasoning on scope and
content of the prior art, and conclusions set out in the Final Action and
Answer regarding this rejection. We find the Examiner has established that
the claims would have been obvious over Song combined with Panandiker.
3
Appeal 2016-008744
Application 12/955,400
Appellants have not produced evidence showing, or persuasively
argued, that the Examiner’s determinations with respect to obviousness are
incorrect. Only those arguments made by Appellants in the Briefs have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments not presented in the Briefs are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). We have identified claim 1
as representative; therefore, all claims fall with claim 1. We address
Appellants’ arguments below.
Appellants’ contention that one skilled in the art would not combine
the teachings of the references because they are divergent technologies is
unpersuasive. Panandiker teaches that laundry compositions can contain
germicides. Panandiker 1102. Song teaches the use of bacitracin, a known
germicide, in a cleaning composition. Song 119. It would have been
obvious to use bacitracin as the germicide in Panandiker to produce the
claimed composition. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d
1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]his court finds no . . . error in [the]
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
substitute one ARC [alkaline reactive compound] for another.”). “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, the cited prior art
references are directed to cleaning products and their combination would be
obvious.
4
Appeal 2016-008744
Application 12/955,400
Conclusion of Law
We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious over Song
combined with Panandiker under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 9—12, 16, and 35—37 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5