Appeal No. 2006-1530 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/221,959
suggested by Pitfield. See column 2, line 35-51 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,572,663 to Pitfield, used as a translation of the published
PCT application reference. Consequently, appellants’ argument
suggesting a lack of disclosure of such a dye composition
ingredient in Pitfield is without merit.
Concerning the 0.1 to 5% by weight range of cationic
biopolymer called for in dependent claim 16, Pitfield teaches
that cationic chitin derivatives (a cationic biopolymer, see
appellants’ dependent claim 12) can be employed in the hair dye
composition, as discussed above. As to the claimed amount of
that ingredient, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have readily determined the workable amounts of such a
known hair dye additive to be employed in the dye composition of
Pitfield and, in so doing arrived at amounts within the claimed
range recited in dependent claim 16. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation.”). Consequently, appellants’ contention that
Pitfield is silent concerning that claim requirement is not
persuasive of the unobviousness of claim 16.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007