Ex Parte SUARES et al - Page 10




                Appeal No. 2001-1489                                                                       Page 10                             
                Application No. 09/177,695                                                                                                     

                However, if repeated during subsequent prosecution, these statements do not                                                    
                satisfactorily explain how one of ordinary skill would be led to modify the prior art to                                       
                provide for “complementary” first and second compositions. Albeit examiner concludes                                           
                that “one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the two different products                                    
                that may be “complementary,” there is no straightforward connection between “different”                                        
                products and “complementary” products. Rather, the scope of the term                                                           
                “complementary” should first be established before determining whether the claimed                                             
                invention encompasses the “different” products disclosed in the cited prior art. In that                                       
                regard, “the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the                                         
                specification.”  In re Yamamoto,  740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.                                            
                1984). The specification mentions “complementary” only in lines 1-6 of page 2 of the                                           
                specification but only in terms of the type of product a person would want to use. The                                         
                term is never defined.  Accordingly, the term must be given its plain meaning. In re                                           
                Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The plain meaning                                             
                of “complementary”, in the context of the claims, is that one composition would act to                                         
                make up what is lacking in another composition, so as to make a complete cosmetic                                              
                regime. In light of that interpretation, we would agree with examiner that the prior art                                       
                shows using “complementary” products in a skin treatment regime. The Jacqueline                                                
                Cochran Advertisement, for example, shows a cleanser cream, then a foundation                                                  
                cream and then a night cream. It is fairly evident that the cleansing cream must be used                                       








Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007