Appeal No. 2006-1222 Page 5
Application No. 10/141,442
the prior art teaches the limitations of the claims under rejection. This has not
happened on this record. For illustrative purposes, we make the following
observations:
1. Liquid at room temperature:
Claim 1 before us on appeal would appear to require that the composition be
a liquid at room temperature. From the examiner’s statement of the rejection
Warner discloses a composition that is a “semi-solid or solid at 20°C.”
The examiner provides no explanation as to why this disclosure anticipates
appellants’ claimed invention?
2. Is a lotion a liquid at room temperature?
Recognizing the examiner’s reliance on Warner to teach a composition
that is a “semi-solid or solid at 20°C,” appellants assert (Brief, page 6), this
teaching in Warner cannot anticipate claims 2-18 and 20-24, all of which depend
from claim 1.
Upon consideration of the Appendix of Claims attached to the Brief, we
find that claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and as discussed above, require that
the composition be a liquid at room temperature. While claim 7 is an
independent claim, it also appears to require that the claimed composition be a
liquid at room temperature. Claims 8-12 depend from claim 7.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007