Appeal No. 2002-0433 Page 3
Application No. 09/575,258
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Hill 5,707,613 Jan. 13, 1998
Lin et al. (Lin) 5,948,855 Sep. 7, 1999
Glover 6,017,546 Jan. 25, 2000
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Hill, Lin, and Glover.
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;
(2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 10); (3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 11);
and (4) the above-cited prior art references.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Discussion
We agree with the examiner's finding that Hill constitutes the closest prior art.
Hill discloses a clear silicone microemulsion comprising (a) water; (b) a volatile cyclic
methyl siloxane oil or a volatile linear methyl siloxane oil; and (c) a short-chain or low
molecular weight silicone polyether. The silicone polyethers disclosed by Hill have
essentially the same structural formula as the silicone polyethers recited in claim 1
before us. Compare Hill, column 10, lines 7 through 32 with claim 1, component (iii).
The principal difference between the microemulsion disclosed by Hill and
applicants' claimed microemulsion resides in the percentages of components; and that
difference is acknowledged by the examiner (Paper No. 11, page 4, second complete
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007