Appeal No. 95-3684
Application 08/110,273
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
In regard to the other independent claim, claim 20, the
Examiner notes on page 4 of the answer that Krauss fails to
teach the means for regulating the temperature within the
machine to maintain the cosmetic compositions at a constant
viscosity thereby improving accuracy of dosing as set forth in
Appellant's claim 20. On the same page of the answer, the
Examiner states that this concept is not new or unobvious and
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to regulate the temperature. We note that the
Examiner did not provide any evidence in prior art to support
the Examiner's conclusion.
With regard to the only other independent claim, claim
22, Examiner notes on page 5 of the answer that Krauss fails
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007