Patent Interference No. 103,548
Goldemberg) and propylene glycol (i.e., Goldemberg et al.) are on the list of possible
solvents provided for by Lagrange's reissue claim 31.
The Goldemberg disclosures suggest that a hair dye formulator would have
considered employing a water/solvent medium containing for example ethanol or
propylene glycol, among other solvents, for the purpose of increasing dye uptake or as
a standard medium for studying the effect of additives on dyes. The disclosures
encompass oxidation dyes, which would appear to include the indolines that are set
forth in either of Lagrange patent claim 5 or Konrad claim 4. There is a reasonable
expectation that when such an indoline is in a water/solvent medium containing ethanol
or propylene glycol, it would, like other dyes, show for example an increase in dye
uptake. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
select the particular water/solvent mixtures set forth in Lagrange reissue claim 31 from
the broad genus of mediums encompassed by the presumed prior art, i.e., Lagrange
patent claim 5 and Konrad claim 4, in view of the Goldemberg disclosures.
Lagrange (LOB 35-37) disputes the relevance of the Goldemberg disclosures on
the grounds that it is directed to any dye; that is, it does not specifically disclose indoles
or indolines, and does not provide the necessary incentive to substitute Konrad’s carrier
with a solvent.
The first argument is unpersuasive. The Goldemberg and Goldemberg et al
disclosures are very clear in stating that they are describing the effect of formulation
factors/conditions and additives as they relate to any dye or any oxidation dye,
respectively. To one of ordinary skill reading these references, the indication is that the
61
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007