Appeal No. 95-4250 Page 10
Application No. 08/086,395
does not suggest any advantage or reason to employ
organosilanes as claimed in the water phase of Yoneyama as a
partial or complete substitute for some or all of the other
component(s) thereof. While Shioya (column 11, lines 23-32)3
may suggest that substantially matching the refractive indices
of the water and oil phases used in making a similar
composition may enhance the transparency of the final
composition, Shioya does not cure the deficiency noted above
with respect to a lack of a teaching or suggestion for using
organosilanes of the type claimed herein in the water phase of
Yoneyama for preparing a clear gel composition.
We agree with the examiner (answer, page 14) that a prima
facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not
require a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that
the use of organosilanes as taught by Legrow would have the
same advantage or similar utility as a humectant or substitute
therefore in the composition as claimed as apparently newly
discovered by appellant herein.
3We note that the use of an organosilane compound in the
composition of Yoneyama necessarily involves a substitution
since all of the utilized components of the composition must
total 100% thereof.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007