Appeal No. 2006-2731
Application No. 10/102,077
this subject matter. In fact, Appellants’ data suggest that a particle size of 1.51 microns
yields a relatively stable composition. See Specification at 36 (table). Thus, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, and 12-14.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is a different story. Both Coffindaffer and Thiel use or suggest use of
silicones. See Coffindaffer passim & Thiel, col. 9, ll. 4-37. Thus, without some reason to
exclude silicones from Coffindaffer (which the Examiner has not provided), we conclude
the Examiner has not made a prima facie case that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to omit silicone from the disclosed shampoo.
Conclusion
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, and 12-14 and reverse the rejection of
claim 15.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART
)
)
)
TONI R. SCHEINER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERIC GRIMES ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
) )
)
NANCY J. LINCK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013