Appeal 2007-0321
Application 10/669,547
oil-based composition comprising 90-100 % of lipophilic materials” as
required in claim 1 (id. at 4).
To meet this limitation, the Examiner cites Michaels as disclosing “a
pretreatment composition for shaving to provide[] comfort [and] soothing
effect to the skin, and no irritation . . . . The reference teaches a formulation
comprising 75-85 % of mineral oil and up to 2 % of emollient such as
lanolin” (id.). The Examiner urges that claim 1’s limitation requiring 90 to
100 percent lipophilic material in the pretreatment composition would have
been obvious in view of Michaels’ disclosure that a shaving pretreatment
composition for soothing the skin contained up to 87% lipophilic material
(85% mineral oil plus 2% lanolin) (id. at 4-5). The Examiner reasons that “a
skilled artisan would have discovered by routine experiments the workable
range of mineral oil and lanolin to make a composition comprising above
87% of the oil ingredients” (id. at 5).
The Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill would have
considered it obvious to modify LaHann’s teachings “by using [] an oil-
based composition as motivated by Michaels because (i) LaHann teaches
mineral oil as a suitable emollient for the composition; [and] (ii) Michaels
specifically teaches that the mineral oil-based composition provides comfort,
smoothing effect to the skin with reduced or no irritation” (id.) The
Examiner urges that one of ordinary skill “would have had a reasonable
expectation of successfully producing a stable anti-irritant oily composition
containing mineral oil, which provides comfort and soothing effect to the
skin” (id.).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013