Appeal No. 2005-1428 Page 9
Application No. 09/930,320
shampoo and conditioner compositions and well within the level of ordinary skill in the
art to utilize.
Appellants argue that “Tartaglione does not disclose how personal care products
can be custom formulated nor the relationship of the ingredients that are required by the
inventive method of custom formulating such products.” Appeal Brief, page 11.
Appellants’ argument fails to address the combined teachings of the references.
As discussed above, Rath would have suggested the method of claim 1 and Tartaglione
would have suggested the limitations added by claim 24. We agree with the examiner
that the combined references would have suggested all the limitations of the claimed
invention.
Summary
We affirm the examiner’s rejections. Since our reasoning differs from that of the
examiner, however, we designate our affirmances as new grounds of rejection under 37
CFR § 41.50(b). See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-03, 190 USPQ 425, 426-27
(CCPA 1976).
Time Period for Response
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
(effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz.
Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007