Appeal No. 95-0415
Application 08/013,877
13. A method of conditioning human skin comprising applying
an effective amount of the composition of Claim 1 to the skin as
a coating, and rubbing the composition into the skin.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Bolich, Jr. et al. (Bolich) 4,902,499 Feb. 20, 1990
Cobb et al. (Cobb) 4,906,459 Mar. 6, 1990
Clement 5,118,507 June 2, 1992
CLAIMS ON APPEAL
We observe that claims 13 and 14 were omitted from the
statement of the rejection in the Final Rejection, even though
the subject matter of these claims was addressed in light of the
teachings of the applied prior art. We also observe that
appellants discuss these claims in relationship to the applied
prior art in the Appeal Brief and they did not file a Reply Brief
to contest the inclusion of claims 13 and 14 in the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Examiner’s Answer. Thus, as
appellants were fully apprised of the inclusion of claims 13 and
14 in the ground of rejection, we hold the examiner’s omission to
be harmless error.
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cobb
or Bolich in combination with Clement.
We affirm this rejection only with respect to claims 1 and
9-14. With respect to claims 2-8, we reverse this rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007