Appeal 2006-3047
Application 09/820,934
shampoos does anything more than yield predictable results, we conclude
that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that claim 1 would have
been obvious over the cited prior art, which Appellants have not adequately
rebutted by argument or evidence. As discussed above, claims 2-9, 13-19,
33-42, and 56-59 stand or fall with claim 1.
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 13-19,
33-42, and 56-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Niemiec
and Bertho.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
& DUNNER LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON DC 20001-4413
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013