Patent Interference No. 103,548
providing for a specific gel carrier but Lagrange reissue claim 34 is broad enough to
include a gel carrier and therefore that difference is not patentably consequential.
Accordingly, the issue is whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to include iodide as part of the peroxide oxidizing system used in the
method of Konrad claims 13 and 14.
Konrad directs our attention to the earlier discussion addressing Lagrange patent
and reissue claims 22 and 23. The parties will recall that the only difference between
the indoline/oxidizing component-comprising compositions of Lagrange patent and
reissue claims 22 and 23 and, for example, the indoline/gel carrier-comprising
composition of Konrad claim 4 is that Lagrange patent and reissue claims 22 and 23
provides for an iodide/peroxide oxidizing system and Konrad claim 4 does not. It was
determined that the addition of such an oxidizing system to the Konrad composition
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the known use of
that system for indoles, as shown by Grollier '500 and FR '061 (with or without
phenylenediamine, respectively), and the suggestion by Parent that the oxidation
mechanisms for indoles and indolines are equivalent. The same obviousness analysis
applies here.
In view of the fact that:
· Grollier 500 teaches using the oxidation system, albeit with phenylenediamine,
with indoles in the oxidative dyeing of keratinous fibers;
· FR ‘061, like Grollier ‘500, teaches using an iodide/peroxide oxidizing system
with indoles but without phenylenediamine; and,
· Parent suggests equivalent oxidation mechanisms for indoles and indolines in
the context of oxidative hair dyeing,
69
Page: Previous 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007