Appeal No. 94-1495
Application 07/972,342
silicon additive is an amine functional silicone and the second
is a trisiloxame polyether containing only three silicon atoms.
Ansher-Jackson, the only reference relied upon by the
examiner in her statement of rejection, is said to disclose a
hair care composition comprising an amine functional silicone
(column 15, lines 44-67), and a polysiloxane polyether containing
four or more silicon atoms per molecule (column 9, lines 33-56)
in an anionic surfactant base (column 6, lines 40-45). The
examiner recognizes that Ansher-Jackson does not disclose the
claimed trisiloxane polyether for she states: "[A]nsher-Jackson
differs from the claimed invention in failing to teach a siloxane
polyether comprising three silicone[sic, silicon] atoms per
molecule." In order to remedy this deficiency, the examiner then
asserts and concludes:
...applicant has clearly recognized that siloxane
polyethers are well known in the art (page 6 of the
specification citing Noll...) Accordingly, it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to substitute a known,
equivalent species of siloxane polyether for that of
Ansher-Jackson with the expectation of successfully
deriving a hair care composition. (Page 3 of
Examiner’s Answer)
We cannot agree with the examiner's assertion and
conclusion. Initially, we point out that there is no reason why
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007