Ex Parte GALLAGHER et al - Page 3


                    Appeal No.  2002-0608                                                                     Page 3                        
                    Application No.  09/294,173                                                                                             

                    surfactant and a cationic deposition polymer, and teaches the use of a blend of                                         
                    emulsified particles, wherein the particles have an average particle size of less                                       
                    than about 2 microns and an average particle size of greater than about 5                                               
                    microns.                                                                                                                
                            The rejection concludes:                                                                                        
                                     Neither Reid nor Baravetto teach a blend (two components)                                              
                            of silicone particles with the claimed average particles of 0.15 to 30                                          
                            microns and less than 0.10 microns.  However, the prior art                                                     
                            recognizes the combination of cationic deposition polymers,                                                     
                            cleansing surfactants, and emulsified silicone particles in aqueous                                             
                            shampoo formulations.  The prior art recognizes that the                                                        
                            combination improves hair conditioning effects in shampoo                                                       
                            compositions.  As to the emulsified silicone particles, such                                                    
                            preformed silicone microemulsions are commercially available as                                                 
                            conditioning additives in shampoo compositions, and one of                                                      
                            ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar conditioning                                              
                            results with one or more of these silicone microemulsions.  Further,                                            
                            the selection of an optimal species to obtain the art recognized                                                
                            effect (i.e. improving the conditioning of the hair during a shampoo                                            
                            treatment) is within the ambit of ordinary skill in the art.                                                    
                    Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4.                                                                                           
                            Appellants argue that Reid taken by itself does not teach or suggest a                                          
                    dual particle size composition.  See Appeal Brief, page 12.  Appellants argue                                           
                    that Baravetto does not remedy the deficiency because Baravetto                                                         
                            makes no disclosure or teaching of the use of a microemulsion of                                                
                            0.10 micron particle size or less in conjunction of another emulsion                                            
                            of particles of 0.15 to 30 microns.  In fact, Baravetto, which recites                                          
                            a number of varying particle size ranges at column 11, lines 35-58,                                             
                            never captures the presently recited ranges of particle sizes.                                                  
                    Appeal Brief, page 13.  We agree.                                                                                       
                            The burden is on the examiner to make a prima facie case of                                                     
                    obviousness, and the examiner may meet this burden by demonstrating that the                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007