Appeal No. 96-0419
Application No. 07/928,063
waving effective amount of a reducing agent” and “0.01 to 0.2% by weight ... chlorophyll or5
chlorophyll derivative...”. Further, “permanent waving” is referenced in both the preamble and the
body of the claim. Thus, in this case, we agree with the appellant that the preamble cannot be ignored
as merely stating an intended use for the claimed composition (Brief, pages 14-15).
Secondly, viewing the invention as a whole, we find that neither Miki nor Isobe provide
sufficient guidance or direction to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to select the narrowly claimed
concentration range of chlorophyll/chlorophyll derivative or particular combination of only certain
specific copper compounds and certain reducing compounds from the lists of potential ranges and
compounds in these references. The examiner has not explained what would have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to select sodium/potassium copper chlorophyllin from Miki’s list of potential
copper compounds in combination with sodium thiosulfate from Miki’s list of potential reducing agents
(see col. 2, lines 14-31 and 44-53) or to provide the chlorophyllin in the narrow range of 0.01 to 0.2
wt. % given Miki’s suggested range of 0.001 to 200 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight
phosphoric acid compound (col. 2, lines 63-66). Similarly, the examiner has failed to explain what
would have motivated one skilled in the art to select a specific amount of thioglycolic acid from Isobe’s
list of potential polymerization initiators (col. 3, line 66 - col. 5, line 50) as the claimed “permanent
5 According to specification page 4, third paragraph, “the applied reducing agent normally ranges between
about 1 and about 15% by weight of the total reducing composition, preferably between about 3 and about 10% by
weight.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007