Ex parte DANIEL J. HALLORAN - Page 7

            Appeal No. 95-1302                                                                             
            Application 07/729,281                                                                         

            reproduce the reasons set forth in paragraph 17 of that Office                                 

                         Lamb et al. disclose hair care                                                    
                         compositions and methods of treating hair                                         
                         comprising applying to the hair a formulation                                     
                         comprising at least one of the materials                                          
                         selected from the group consisting of a                                           
                         conditioning agent, surfactant, neutralizing                                      
                         agent, water soluble quaternized protein,                                         
                         silicone polymer, water, thickener, nonionic                                      
                         emulsiying [sic] wax, sunscreen, fixative and                                     
                         antimicrobial, the improvement comprising a                                       
                         conditioning agent which is a hydrophobic                                         
                         cationic aqueous emulsion of a highly                                             
                         branched and crosslinked polydimethylsiloxane                                     
                         resin present in an amount of from 0.05 to                                        
                         20% by weight of the composition [emphasis                                        

                  Manifestly, the examiner’s statement of rejection does not                               
            explain how each and every element set forth in claim 17 is found                              
            in the Lamb reference.  The examiner does not explain how or                                   
            where the organosilicon compound, recited in claim 17 by way of                                
            Markush Group, is found in Lamb.  See  2131 of the Manual of                                  
            Patent Examining Procedure (6th Edition, Revision 2, July 1996).                               
            For this reason alone, the  102 rejection is flawed.                                          
                  We point out that paragraph 17 of the Office Action mailed                               
            April 1, 1993, refers to a “silicone polymer” and a “hydrophobic                               
            cationic aqueous emulsion of a highly branched and crosslinked                                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007