Appeal No. 2001-1489 Page 6
Application No. 09/177,695
Examiner has failed to address all the claimed limitations. Here, not all the
differences between the claims and prior art have been identified and addressed. “All
words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the
prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
The following claimed limitations have not been adequately addressed:
1) the step of instructing consumers placing instructions on the containers as
described in claims 1, 10 and 11;
2) the requirement that the first and second compositions be “complementary”
products as described in claims 1 and 11;
3) the requirement that the first and second containers be fitted with a coupling
means, that “the means for coupling is a threaded screw”, and “releasably locked” as
described in claims 2, 3 and 4, respectively;
4) the color codings of claims 5 and 6;
5) the pump mechanism as described in claim 7;
6) any one of the benefits and active ingredients listed in claims 8 and 9,
respectively;
7) the use of the two compositions in a “sequential manner” as set forth in claim
10;
8) and similar limitations set forth for the treament regime product of claim 11.
Since examiner has not addressed each and every limitation in the claims, we
are not presented the necessary factual analysis to make a meaningful review of
examiner’s position that the claims are prima facie obvious over the cited art
combination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007