Appeal 2007-0321
Application 10/669,547
We are not persuaded by this argument. For the reasons discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner that LaHann, Michaels, and Orlow
render the kit of claim 7 obvious. Syed discloses using gloves, cotton, and
applicators as components in kits used for protecting hair (Syed, col. 3, ll.
12-31), rather than removing it.
However, as noted above, the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one
of ordinary skill, being one of ordinary creativity, would have inferred at
least from Syed that a textile would be useful as an applicator for personal
care products such as the skin pretreatment compositions disclosed by
LaHann and Michaels. We therefore also agree that one of ordinary skill
would have considered it obvious to include the textile carrier recited in
claim 8 in the kit recited in claim 7.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 8.
Claim 9 falls with claim 8 because it was not argued separately. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-17.
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013