Appeal 2007-0321
Application 10/669,547
Michaels, LaHann’s failure to by itself disclose or suggest all of claim 1’s
limitations does not render the claim unobvious.
Appellants argue that “[t]here is a significant difference between
shaving and depilatory treatment” because shaving uses a sharp blade,
whereas hair removal using depilatory compositions uses a chemical
reaction to degrade hair (Br. 9). Therefore, Appellants argue, “[m]ethods
and compositions which are useful against sharpened blades would not be
obvious substitutes for the quite different depilatory treatment” (id. at 9-10).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Contrary to Appellants’
argument, Michael does not only describe mineral oil to protect against
shaving, but also describes its use to keep skin “nonirritated” after using it to
remove paint from the skin (Col. 4, ll. 9-11). Moreover, Michaels discloses
that removing paint with the mineral oil composition leaves the skin “supple
and refreshed” (Michaels, col. 2, ll. 19-24). Thus, we do not agree that one
of ordinary skill would have viewed the effect of Michaels’ lipophilic
composition to be limited to alleviating the mechanical irritation caused by
shaving.
Appellants argue that Michaels’ disclosure that the anti-irritant
composition must contain a minimum of 15% anhydrous alcohol in addition
to the mineral oil “teaches away from the at least 90% [lipophilic materials]
of the present claims” (Br. 10). Appellants urge that the lower aliphatic
alcohols in Michaels’ compositions “are hydrophilic rather than lipophilic;
the alcohol changes the character of the mineral oil containing composition.
Again this leads away from the present invention which seeks to apply a
protective lipophilic coat to skin prior to depilation” (id.).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013