Appeal No. 96-0937
Application 08/203,723
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Bolich, Jr. (Bolich N658) 5,100,658 Mar. 31, 1992 (filed July 16, 1990)
Bolich, Jr. (Bolich N646) 5,104,646 Apr. 14, 1992 (filed July 14, 1990)
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8, 11, 12, 14 through 16, 18, and 20 through 26 stand
2
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bolich N646 or Bolich N658. We
reverse.
Simply put, the examiner has failed to establish that either Bolich N646 or Bolich
N658 describes a composition within the scope of the claims on appeal with the
specificity required by 35 U.S.C. § 102. There is no dispute that each of the Bolich
references describes hair care compositions which comprise the silicone macromer-
containing copolymer required by claim 1(a)(i), the volatile silicone fluid required by
claim 1(a)(ii), and water required by claim 1(b). See generally column 14, line 57-
column 17, line 66 (silicone macromer-containing copolymer); column 9, line 62-column
10 line 31 (volatile silicone fluid) and the examples (water) and, specifically, examples
such as Example XII which contain a silicone macromer-containing copolymer, volatile
2The statement of the rejections set forth on page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer
includes claims 9, 10, and 19. We see this as an inadvertent error on the part of the
examiner in view of the statement at page 1 of the Examiner’s Answer that claims 9, 10,
and 19 are only objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007