Appeal No. 95-3320
Application 07/974,510
thereto, inter alia. We note especially the following
acknowledgment in appellants’ specification (Specification, p.
3, l. 4-8):
. . . [I]t is well known that an antiserum
obtained from a mammal has complement-activating
effects so that it tends to stimulate neutrophils
to cause local inflammation. It is therefore
preferred not to use a mammal antiserum in hair
care products.
Accordingly, by applicants’ admission, persons having ordinary
skill in the art would have preferred to use and would have
had adequate incentive to try to use serum antibody which is
obtained from the blood of a non-mammalian animal immunized
using human hair as an antigen as the antibody-containing
serum Widder suggests for use in hair care products. Would
persons having ordinary skill in the art reasonably have
expected that antibody-containing serum from the blood of a
domestic fowl immunized
with human hair would be a useful component in human hair care
products? The record does not provide us with a “clear-cut”
answer. We find that the evidence of record indicates that
the antibodies in blood serum derived from fowl immunized with
human hair as an antigen “are distinct” from the antibodies in
blood serum derived from mammals immunized with human hair as
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007