Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
(b) a first cosmetic composition disposed such that upon breaking the
first breakable capsule the first cosmetic composition is wetted by the first
liquid; and
(c) a second breakable capsule disposed between said second substrate
layer and said third substrate layer.
According to Appellant the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher does not teach the arrangement set forth in claim 82 (Br. 23).
As discussed above, the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher teaches a cosmetic article comprising at least three substrate
layers (FF 8 and 9). In this regard, Gruenbacher teaches a fluid containing a
reservoir associated with a first layer that is separated from a second layer by
a liquid impervious barrier layer (FF 19). In this arrangement, a first
cosmetic composition that is disposed on the first layer will be wetted by the
first liquid when the liquid containing capsule(s) associated with that layer is
broken. In addition, for the reasons set forth above, we find that the
combination of Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher teaches at least one
additional (e.g., second) breakable capsule disposed between additional
substrate layers (e.g., second and third substrate layers) (FF 1, 2, 6, and 20).
For the foregoing reasons we find that the article of claim 82 would
have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made in view of the combined teachings of
Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher. Claims 83-87 and 90-94 fall together
with claim 82.
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013