Appeal No. 2002-0441 Page 3
Application No. 09/273,152
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the above combination as further combined with
Schulz. After careful review of the record and consideration of the issues before
us, we reverse.
DISCUSSION
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 17-22, 24, 27-30 and 32-39 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Lee and
Greczyn.
According to the rejection, “Lee discloses a cosmetic composition which
comprises a deodorant, an antiperspirant and/or an antimicrobial agent, a volatile
silicone and a organopolysiloxane gelling agent . . . and may contain an
emulsifier.” Examiner’s Answer, page 3. The rejection acknowledges that “Lee
does not teach a nonionic surfactant or an emollient as instantly claimed.” Id.
Greczyn is cited for teaching a low residue antiperspirant of which a
nonionic surfactant with an HLB greater than 10 is one of the components. But
the rejection concedes that “Greczyn does not teach a silicone gel material as
instantly claimed.” Id. at 4.
The rejection concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to prepare the composition of Lee and
substitute a nonionic surfactant as taught by Greczyn for its
surfactant properties with the reasonable expectation of producing
a low residue antiperspirant with smooth application and optimized
odor and wetness protection.
Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007