Appeal No. 2001-2397 Page 4
Application No. 08/855,779
Discussion
1. Anticipation
Claim 1, the broadest claim on appeal, is directed to a “personal care
composition” comprising a “hydrophobically modified nonionic water soluble
polysaccharide” and “at least one active personal care ingredient.” The examiner
and Appellant appear to agree that an example of the polysaccharide defined in
the claims is 3-alkoxy-2-hydroxypropylhydroxyethylcellulose, having an alkyl
substituent with 3-7 carbon atoms.
The examiner rejected claim 1, together with certain other claims, as
anticipated by any of Angerer, t’Sas, or Sau. He characterized each of the prior
art references as disclosing compositions comprising 3-alkoxy-2-hydroxypropyl-
hydroxyethylcellulose, having an alkyl moiety that could be C3-C7, together with
at least one other ingredient that could be considered a “personal care
ingredient.” See the Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4. Thus, for example, the
examiner characterizes Angerer as disclosing a composition comprising
3-alkoxy-2-hydroxypropylhydroxyethylcellulose, where the alkyl moiety can be a
straight or branched chain alkyl group having 6-24 carbon atoms, together with
other ingredients that can include a surfactant, a solvent, and/or a pigment
(titanium dioxide). Examiner’s Answer, page 3.
His reasoning is similar with respect to t’Sas and Sau. In each case, the
examiner gave no weight to the preamble language reciting a “personal care
composition.” The examiner concluded that “[t]he preamble does not carry any
patentable weight as the claims are drawn to the compositions.” Pages 3 and 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007