Appeal No. 2002-0526
Application No. 09/141,515
35 U.S.C. ' 103
1. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
obvious over Clarke and Ramin in further view of Commander.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With this as background, we
analyze the prior art applied by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), Ramin is relied
on by the examiner for the disclosure of an organic solvent based
nail varnish composition comprising a film forming polymer. The
composition may also contain rheological agents such as guar,
carob and xanthan gums and a plasticizer. Id. The composition
of Ramin may further contain an oily medium, for example plant
or mineral oils (column 2, line 54 to column 3, line 12). Id.
In one embodiment Ramin teaches a non-aqueous, solvent based
nail varnish having improved sheen (i.e., shine). Example 3,
columns 4-5.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007