Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
As discussed above, the article of claim 52 would have been prima
facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
combination of Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher. As further discussed
above (see discussion of claim 14), the combination of Bechmann and Beck
teaches an article wherein at least one substrate layer is separated into
portions. In our opinion, the location of particular components on a first or
second portion of an article taught by the prior art does not distinguish the
claimed product from the prior art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396.
On reflection, we affirm the rejection of claim 58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher. Claims 59-62 fall together with claim 58.
Claim 63:
Appellant groups and argues claims 62, 63, 76, 88, 89, and 113
together; therefore these claims will stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Accordingly, we limit our discussion to representative
claim 63. Claim 63 ultimately depends from and further limits the cosmetic
article of claim 52 to further include
(1) a surfactant; and
(2) an effervescent composition which is wetted upon breaking the
first breakable capsule(s) to enhance foaming of the surfactant.
According to Appellant, the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher fails to teach an effervescent material which is wetted upon
breaking the capsule to assist lathering of cleansing compositions associated
with the substrate. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013