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 usedPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007