Appeal No. 1996-2732
Application 08/241,524
ELLIS, concurring.
I am in complete agreement with the carefully-reasoned and well-written decision of
the panel, and I write only to add that I do not find that the Aronson patent falls within the
scope of relevant prior art.
A reference is considered relevant art if it “is within the inventor’s field of endeavor,
and if it is not ... [it must be] reasonably pertinent to the particular problem confronting the
inventor.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1578, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir.
1995). The Aronson patent does not meet either criterion. The appellants’ field of
endeavor is related to shaving gels which must have certain properties [specification, p. 8];
whereas, Aronson is directed to high-internal-phase emulsions (HIPE’s) which are said to
be useful in rocket and jet fuels, in cosmetics and drugs, and in foods such as dietary
products. Aronson, col. 3, lines 19-33. In addition to the shortcomings of the rejection
discussed by the panel on pages 5-6 above, I also find the examiner’s allegation that the
present shaving gel compositions are within the field of cosmetic arts and, thus, within the
same field of endeavor as Aronson, to be inappropriate and without support. In fact, to the
contrary, I find that the term “cosmetic” is defined as “a preparation, as rouge or lipstick,
designed to beautify the body by direct application. ... 1. Serving to beautify the body, 2.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007