Appeal No. 95-3684
Application 08/110,273
Upon a careful review of Krauss, we fail to find that
Krauss teaches a machine for blending color as recited in
Appellant's claim 1. We agree that makeup formulations have a
color. However, Krauss is not concerned with color blending,
only blending additives into a cosmetic base for providing
suitability to the type of skin condition (e.g. normal skin,
oily skin or dry skin). See column 1, lines 1-31.
Therefore, we find that Krauss fails to teach all of the
limitations of claim 1, and thereby the claim is not
anticipated by Krauss.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the
burden of the Examiner to establish why one having ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention
by the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior
art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007