Appeal 2006-3047
Application 09/820,934
11. There is no dispute that an alkyl pentoside is an example of the “sugar
chosen from C3 to C5 monosaccharides substituted with at least one C1 to
C22 carbon chain” required by claim 1.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner contends that “it would have been obvious for one of
an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to add [the]
alkyl pentoside mixture of Bertho in the hair composition containing the
Polyquaternium-10 hair conditioner . . . of Niemiec” (Answer 4) because
Niemiec is “directed to a hair shampoo and conditioning composition
containing detergent surfactants as well as conditioners” (id.), and Bertho
teaches that alkyl pentosides are economically advantageous and have “the
ability to act as [ ] surfactant[s], [to] enhance foaming, [and have]
emulsifying and detergent power . . . which is also desired by Niemiec”
(Answer 4).
Appellants argue essentially that there is “no reason, suggestion, or
motivation in the prior art to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the teachings of the references in the manner proposed” (Br. 15). In
particular, Appellants argue “[t]o select Polyquaternium-10 as the cationic
conditioning agent, . . . one would not only have to disregard those cationic
conditioning agents Niemiec teaches as most preferred, but would have to
select a cationic cellulose derivative from among the other classes of
cationic conditioning agents disclosed. Yet no reasons are given as to why
the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to select this one particular
cationic conditioning agent from among the many possible, including more
preferred options” (id. at 16). Appellants argue “although Niemiec teaches
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013