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. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007