Appeal No. 95-1302
Application 07/729,281
reproduce the reasons set forth in paragraph 17 of that Office
Action:
Lamb et al. disclose hair care
compositions and methods of treating hair
comprising applying to the hair a formulation
comprising at least one of the materials
selected from the group consisting of a
conditioning agent, surfactant, neutralizing
agent, water soluble quaternized protein,
silicone polymer, water, thickener, nonionic
emulsiying [sic] wax, sunscreen, fixative and
antimicrobial, the improvement comprising a
conditioning agent which is a hydrophobic
cationic aqueous emulsion of a highly
branched and crosslinked polydimethylsiloxane
resin present in an amount of from 0.05 to
20% by weight of the composition [emphasis
added].
Manifestly, the examiner’s statement of rejection does not
explain how each and every element set forth in claim 17 is found
in the Lamb reference. The examiner does not explain how or
where the organosilicon compound, recited in claim 17 by way of
Markush Group, is found in Lamb. See § 2131 of the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (6th Edition, Revision 2, July 1996).
For this reason alone, the § 102 rejection is flawed.
We point out that paragraph 17 of the Office Action mailed
April 1, 1993, refers to a “silicone polymer” and a “hydrophobic
cationic aqueous emulsion of a highly branched and crosslinked
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007