Appeal 2007-0107
Application 10/013,885
compositions or formulations, such as cosmetic preparations. According to
the Examiner,
Although the primary references do not discuss the use of
their U.V. absorbers in cosmetic media, the secondary
references each relate that typically 2-OH phenyl substituted s-
triazines finding applications as U.V. absorbers in polymeric
compositions are generally useful for the same purpose for
cosmetic media as well. Thus it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art; at [t]he time the invention
was made, to incorporate applicants' U.V. absorbers in cosmetic
formulations. See also, Decision on Appeal on Appeal No.
2005-0451, pp. 10-12.
(Answer 4).
Appellants make substantially the same arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s reliance on Hardy or Susi with an exception at page 8 of the
Brief. See Brief in its entirety. Appellants maintain that representative
claim 1 requires a composition including a triazine compound of a
formulation that differs from the preferred and exemplified formulations of
Hardi or Susi. Moreover, Appellants contend that a suggestion or
motivation is lacking for the Examiner’s proposed combination of
references.
Thus, the main issues before us in this appeal are: Have Appellants
identified a lack of motivation or rationale for the Examiner’s proposed
modifications of Hardy or Susi or otherwise established reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection? We answer these questions in the negative and
affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013