Appeal No. 2001-1489 Page 10
Application No. 09/177,695
However, if repeated during subsequent prosecution, these statements do not
satisfactorily explain how one of ordinary skill would be led to modify the prior art to
provide for “complementary” first and second compositions. Albeit examiner concludes
that “one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the two different products
that may be “complementary,” there is no straightforward connection between “different”
products and “complementary” products. Rather, the scope of the term
“complementary” should first be established before determining whether the claimed
invention encompasses the “different” products disclosed in the cited prior art. In that
regard, “the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification.” In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The specification mentions “complementary” only in lines 1-6 of page 2 of the
specification but only in terms of the type of product a person would want to use. The
term is never defined. Accordingly, the term must be given its plain meaning. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The plain meaning
of “complementary”, in the context of the claims, is that one composition would act to
make up what is lacking in another composition, so as to make a complete cosmetic
regime. In light of that interpretation, we would agree with examiner that the prior art
shows using “complementary” products in a skin treatment regime. The Jacqueline
Cochran Advertisement, for example, shows a cleanser cream, then a foundation
cream and then a night cream. It is fairly evident that the cleansing cream must be used
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007