Appeal No. 95-4881
Application 08/254,852
§ 1.131 by all of the named inventors of this application does not remove the Ansher-Jackson and Bolich
references as prior art, we do not find that the examiner has established that the claimed subject matter
would have been a prima facie case of obviousness over Ansher-Jackson or Bolich over Keil.
Claim 7, the only independent claim in the application, recites a composition comprising a mixture
of an amine functional silicone and a trisiloxane polyether useful as a hair conditioner. The Ansher-Jackson
and Bolich patents disclose a hair conditioner composition comprising, inter alia, a hair conditioner
consisting of an amine functional silicone within the scope of claim 7 (compare Ansher-Jackson formula (II)
to the formula disclosed on page 20 of appellants’ specification) and a secondary surfactant consisting of
a trisiloxane polyether, i.e., a polyalkylene oxide modified polydimethylsiloxane (compare the claimed
trisiloxane polyether to Ansher-Jackson’s formula at col. 9, lines 37-45 when x = 1 and y = 1). The
difference between appellants’ composition and the prior art is that the trisiloxane polyether disclosed by
Ansher-Jackson contains an extra polyalkylene unit between the terminal dimethyl siloxane unit and the
methyloxyalkylene siloxane unit.
According to the examiner, “the text of the disclosure [of] both Ansher-Jackson and Bolich refer
to other dimethicone copolyols which have utility in their respective inventions and both incorporate by
reference other patent literature describing these materials” (answer: paragraph bridging pp. 2-3). The
examiner does not point to any particular teachings in the references to exemplify his point disclosing a
siloxane which is within the scope of or structurally obvious from the trisiloxane polyether claimed herein.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007