THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 46
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JOHN A. RIPPON
______________
Appeal No. 96-1957
Application 07/423,4721
_______________
HEARD: DECEMBER 9, 1997
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WEIFFENBACH and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 1, 4 through 18 and 21 through 40. Claim 40 was canceled subsequent to the final
rejection leaving claims 1, 4 through 18 and 21 through 39 for our consideration on appeal Claim
1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:2
1. A method of applying an anionic dye to keratin fibres which comprises pretreating the
fibres by contacting them with an alkaline solution of an amphoteric surfactant, said solution
having a pH of not greater than 11, and thereafter applying dye to the pretreated fibres as an
acidic dye medium.
1Application for patent filed September 25, 1989.
1We have entered the amendment of March 27, 1995 (Paper No. 35) which the examiner has
2
indicated “OK to enter.”
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007