Ex parte HOSHOWSKI - Page 5




                 Appeal No. 1995-4072                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/105,008                                                                                                             


                          We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and                                                                      
                 applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by                                                                          
                 both the examiner and appellant in support of their respective                                                                         
                 positions.  This review leads us to conclude that the                                                                                  
                 examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well founded.                                                                                      
                 Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 103                                                                                  
                 rejections for essentially those reasons set forth in the                                                                              
                 Brief and the Reply Brief.  We add the following for emphasis                                                                          
                 and completeness.                                                                                                                      
                          The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a                                                                         
                 prima facie case of obviousness regarding each and every                                                                               
                 limitation recited in the appealed claims.  To satisfy this                                                                            
                 burden, the examiner primarily relies on the disclosure of                                                                             
                 Noda.   See Answer, pages 2 and 3.  The examiner, however,2                                                                                                                             
                 does not demonstrate that the Noda reference teaches, or would                                                                         
                 have suggested, (1) aqueous, transparent, leave-on hair                                                                                
                 conditioning, protectant or dye compositions; (2) a carrier                                                                            
                 comprising water;  and (3) the residual particles                                                                                      


                          2The Vanlerberghe reference is relied upon to show that                                                                       
                 it would have been obvious to employ a dye in the capsule                                                                              
                 described in Noda.                                                                                                                     
                                                                           5                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007