Patent Interference No. 103,548
react and produce different colors. However, there is no objective evidence in support of
Lagrange’s argument. We agree with Konrad (KRB, paragraph 9) that the effect of the
presence of phenylenediamine on the oxidation mechanism is unclear, especially since
Grollier uses different amounts and pHs. Moreover, in view of FR ‘061 (see infra), which
teaches the use of a hydrogen peroxide oxidizing system in the context of an indole
without phenylenediamine (see Examples on pp. 8-19), it would appear that
phenylenediamine is not a major factor in the oxidation mechanism.
Lagrange repeats the same arguments that were made against Grollier ‘500, that
there are stability and oxidation mechanism differences between indoles and indolines,
in arguing against FR ‘061. For the same reasons, we are not persuaded. As we have
already indicated, FR ‘061 describes oxidative dyeing with indoles and hydrogen
peroxide but, importantly, FR ‘061 teaches oxidative dyeing in the absence of
phenylenediamine which, in view of the fact that FR ‘061 and Grollier ‘500 are both
directed to indoles, strongly suggests that phenylenediamine is not critical to Grollier’s
peroxide/iodide system.
As to Parent ‘404, Lagrange argues that Parent 404’s coloring is accomplished
by an indole with a coupler and not by the indole alone (LOB, paragraph 21). However,
we have not been directed to any evidence of this. Lagrange also argues that Parent
does not disclose combining iodide and hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizing system.
While that may be the case, Parent 404's relevance in suggesting that indolines can be
used where such an oxidizing system is applied is not defeated by not teaching the
exact oxidizing system already known in the prior art (see Grollier ‘500). Parent
50
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007