Patent Interference No. 103,548
of peroxide alone. The system consisting of peroxide alone is representative of
Konrad’s disclosed system. According to the Declaration the permed results are
“surprisingly improved”46. The uptake results are:
· iodide/peroxide (expt. G) = 21.2 (natural); 33.9 (permed)
· metal salt (expt. H) = 40.9 (natural); 44.9 (permed)
· parabenzoquinone (expt. I) = 50.8 (natural); 49 (permed)
· hydrogen peroxide alone = 24.4 (natural); 24.7 (permed)
These results are inconclusive on the subject of nonobviousness for Lagrange
claims 22-23. Some of the deficiencies are
· For permed hair, uptake is better with hydrogen peroxide alone (per Konrad) than
with a iodide/peroxide system. Accordingly this contradicts the very position
Lagrange is taking.
· The experiments that were conducted employ different dyeing mediums; for
example, the comparative experiment uses fatty alcohol emulsion (in accordance
with Konrad’s disclosure) while the other experiments used aqueous ethanol
formulation. Accordingly, the difference in uptake may be due to the oxidizing
system or changes in dyeing medium.
· In comparing Konrad’s peroxide treatment, Cotteret used a premix in one
experiment while in the other experiment (process B) the hydrogen peroxide was
46 “That it results from those tests:…
1. …
3. that by using as an oxidizing agent either iodide/hydrogen peroxide system, or CUSO4, or
paraquinone, the uptake more particularly on sensitized hair such as permed hair is
surprisingly improved.” (Cotteret Declaration II, Part II, p. 7).
52
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007