Appeal No. 2002-0519 Page 4
Application No. 09/668,959
The Rejection
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable "over Lin et al. (6,080,394) in view of Gregoire et al. (5,449,510) and
Fecht et al. (5,969,038)" (Examiner's Answer, page 3).
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal;
(2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 6); (3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 7);
and (4) the above-cited prior art references.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Discussion
In rejecting claims 1 through 23 for obviousness over the combined disclosures
of Lin, Gregoire, and Fecht, the examiner describes pertinent portions of each
reference and concludes
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to have modified the method of making an
emulsion of Lin et al. by adding the silicone polyether surfactant to the
aqueous phase as taught by Gregoire et al. and by adding a
polymerization catalyst to the combined phases as taught by Fecht et al.,
because of the expectation of producing oil-in-water emulsions that may
be used as carriers in personal care products, as taught by Lin et al.,
Gregoire et al., and Fecht et al., and because of the expectation of
achieving increased polymerization that results in a more viscous,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007