Appeal No. 2005-0241
Application No. 09/904,831
OPINION
The examiner’s position regarding the obviousness
rejection is set forth on pages 3 through 5 of the answer.
We refer to the examiner’s position therein.
In summary, the examiner’s position is that Dubief
teaches hair treating compositions which contain at least
one ceramide and/or a glycoceramide, and at least one
cationic polymer. The examiner states that the
compositions of Dubief can contain thickening agents like
NATROSOL PLUSŪ, and that Dubief teaches that the
compositions may be used for dyeing of keratinous fibers
such as hair, in which case they contain oxidation dyes
and/or direct dyes. The examiner relies upon the
International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary for defining
that NATROSOL PLUSŪ is cetyl- modified hydroxyethyl-
cellulose.
Appellants’ position begins on page 6 of the brief.
Appellants argue that no prima facie case of obviousness
has been established. Appellants argue that while the
examiner indicates that the compositions of Dubief can be
used for oxidative hair dyeing, appellants argue that
Dubief’s compositions are useful for many purposes.
Appellants argue that thickening agents are disclosed as
optional additional ingredients, in a different portion of
the reference from where indication that the composition
can be used for dyeing hair. Brief, page 8. Appellants
conclude that therefore “it can hardly be said that there
is a suggestion in the cited art to modify Dubief as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007