11369593 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2012)

Ex Parte Brooker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 21, 2012

11369593 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/369,593 03/07/2006 Anju Deepali Massey Brooker CM-2957 8553 27752 7590 06/21/2012 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Global Legal Department - IP Sycamore Building - 4th Floor 299 East Sixth Street CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1761 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ANJU DEEPALI MASSEY BROOKER, ALAN THOMAS BROOKER, JULIE ELLIS, NATHALIE SOPHIE LETZELTER, ANDREW PAUL NELSON, ERIC SAN JOSE ROBLES, and NIGEL PATRICK SOMERVILLER ROBERTS ____________ Appeal 2011-003982 Application 11/369,593 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003982 Application 11/369,593 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1, 8, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellants’ invention is directed to a detergent or bleach composition comprising a host-guest complex of C12 diacyl peroxide bleaching species. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A detergent or bleach composition comprising a host-guest complex of C12 diacyl peroxide bleaching species in the form of a compacted aggregate wherein the aggregates comprise a urea clathrate host-guest complex wherein the aggregate has a density of at least about 500 g/l, wherein said diacyl peroxide bleaching species and urea clathrate are present in a ratio of from about 4:1 and wherein said compacted aggregate comprises from about 80% to 100%, by weight of said compacted aggregate, of said host-guest complex; and a soil removal surfactant. Appellants, App. Br. 3, request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s final office action:1 Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hardy ‘132 WO 95/19132 and view of Hardy ‘086 WO 93/07086. 1 Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 8, Appellants are relying on the arguments presented to address claims 1 and 9. Appellants did not present arguments addressing the separate rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hardy ‘132, Hardy ‘086 and Dasque, W001/60966. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2011-003982 Application 11/369,593 3 OPINION The dispositive issue on appeal for this rejection is: Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Hardy ‘132 and Hardy ‘086 would have suggested a bleach composition comprising aggregate particles having the specific weight ratio of bleaching species to urea clathrate as required by the subject matter of claims 1 and 9? 2 After thorough review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we answer this question in the negative and AFFIRM. Appellants argue that “[u]pon review of Hardy II [‘086], Appellents [sic., Appellants] have found no language disclosing the asserted host-guest complex, and the Office Action does not cite any particular section of Hardy II [‘086] at which such disclosure is believed to be found. Further, nothing in Hardy [‘132] teaches or suggests aggregate particles comprising a host- guest complex at all.” (App. Br. 3). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they do not specifically address the rejection as set forth by the Examiner. The Examiner found that Hardy ‘132 discloses granular detergent compositions that comprise a urea clathrate host-guest complex aggregate in amounts that would fall within the scope of the claimed invention. (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner found that Hardy ‘132, page 40, discloses the appropriate particle size and bulk density of the granular detergent composition. (Id.). The Examiner found that Hardy ‘086 discloses bleaching compositions which contain urea clathrate an amount of up to 20% by weight of the diacyl 2 Appellants have not presented separate arguments addressing all of the rejected claims. Consequently, we limit our discussion to claim 1. Appeal 2011-003982 Application 11/369,593 4 peroxide based on the total composition. (Id. 4-5; citing Hardy ‘086 page 7, ll. 10-20). The Examiner found that the teachings of Hardy ‘132 and Hardy ‘086 would have provided a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of forming a detergent composition “containing a host-guest complex of a diacyl peroxide and urea clathrate in the form of an aggregate, a surfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.” (Id. 5). Once the Examiner has presented a reasonable basis for a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden of coming forward with argument and/or evidence in rebuttal is shifted to Appellants. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellants’ conclusory argument does not specifically address the portions of the Hardy ‘132 and Hardy ‘086 references that were relied upon by the Examiner. Appellants have not provided adequate analysis of Hardy ‘132 and Hardy ‘086 that would have refuted the Examiner’s position. Moreover, Appellants have not explained why the cited portions of the references would not have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art aggregate particles comprising a host guest complex as required by the claimed subject matter. ORDER The rejections of claims 1, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED cam