Appeal No. 1995-4072
Application No. 08/105,008
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellant in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well founded.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejections for essentially those reasons set forth in the
Brief and the Reply Brief. We add the following for emphasis
and completeness.
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness regarding each and every
limitation recited in the appealed claims. To satisfy this
burden, the examiner primarily relies on the disclosure of
Noda. See Answer, pages 2 and 3. The examiner, however,2
does not demonstrate that the Noda reference teaches, or would
have suggested, (1) aqueous, transparent, leave-on hair
conditioning, protectant or dye compositions; (2) a carrier
comprising water; and (3) the residual particles
2The Vanlerberghe reference is relied upon to show that
it would have been obvious to employ a dye in the capsule
described in Noda.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007