Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
Claim 95:
Appellant groups and argues claims 95-102 and 114 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 95. Claim 95 is drawn to a cosmetic article comprising a substrate that
includes:
(1) a first pocket;
(2) a second pocket;
(3) a first breakable capsule disposed in the first pocket, the first
breakable capsule containing a first liquid;
(3) a second breakable capsule disposed in said second pocket; and
(4) a cosmetic composition disposed such that upon breaking of the
first breakable capsule, the liquid wets the cosmetic composition.
According to Appellant, the claimed arrangement is not taught by the
combination of Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher (Br. 16-18).
As discussed above, the combination of Bechmann, Beck, and
Gruenbacher teaches a cosmetic article comprising at least one substrate
layer and at least one breakable capsule. Gruenbacher teaches a substrate
that includes one or more pockets for the placement of reservoirs (e.g.,
breakable capsules) in each pocket (FF 20). Gruenbacher’s reservoirs can be
filled with a variety of materials, including inter alia, liquids, flowable
powders, solids or combinations thereof (FF 18). In practice, the
combination of Bechmann, Beck, and Gruenbacher teaches a cosmetic
article comprising a dispersed cosmetic composition that is wetted by
breaking a liquid containing capsule. Accordingly, we find no error in the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013