Appeal No. 95-3981
Application 08/099,880
cosmetic mask. This is in error. It has long been held that statements of intended use
in a composition claim “do not provide limitations by which the claimed composition is
distinguished from those of the prior art.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181
USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Second, this statement indicates that the examiner has
apparently interpreted claim 1 as requiring the presence of alcohol and water when
these elements are only required by dependent claims 7 and 8.
Further evidence that the examiner has not appreciated the scope of claim 1 on
appeal is seen from the entries in the administrative file in the boxes entitled
“SEARCHED” and “SEARCH NOTES.” In the box entitled “SEARCHED,” the examiner
has only searched subclasses in class 424 and class 514. In the “SEARCH NOTES”
box, the examiner has not indicated that any of the computerized data bases available
to the patent examiners were searched. Further, the two texts which are listed as being
reviewed in the “SEARCH NOTES” box appear to be directed to cosmetic formulations.
All of these facts indicate that the examiner has searched for the claimed
combination of polymers as if the claimed composition is limited to a cosmetic mask. It
is not. It appears that relevant classes such as class 525 which is directed to mixtures
of polymers regardless of their intended use have not been searched. Furthermore, it
does not appear that the examiner has used the available computerized data bases.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007