Appeal No. 95-0222
Application 08/145,553
In the present case, the examiner has supplied the Cobb,
Bolich, Clement and Pader references to support her rejection
under § 103. However, none of these references, either
individually or in combination, would have suggested the
employment of the claimed amount of a cycloalkylmethylsiloxane
defined by the claimed formula together with specific proportions
of a particular cyclopolysiloxane and a particular polydimethyl-
siloxane gum. As acknowledged by the examiner, the Cobb, Bolich
and Clement references are silent as to employing the claimed
amount of the claimed cycloalkylmethylsiloxane. Moreover, the
Pader reference as a whole would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ the claimed amount of the
claimed cycloalkylmethylsiloxane together with specific pro-
portions of the particular cyclopolysiloxane and the particular
polydimethylsiloxane gum. As apparent from the Pader reference,
a huge number of nonionic and cationic hair grooming agents,
which may be inclusive of the claimed cycloalkylmethylsiloxane,
are disclosed. Nowhere does the Pader reference, however,
exemplify or show preference for siloxanes which are structurally
identical or similar to the claimed cycloalkylmethylsiloxane.
Nor does the Pader reference recognize the importance of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007