Appeal No. 2002-0608 Page 4 Application No. 09/294,173 prior art would lead the ordinary artisan to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-99 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The findings of fact underlying the obviousness rejection, as well as the conclusions of law, must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706 (A), (E) (1994). See Zurko v. Dickinson, 527 U.S. 150, 158, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 1821, 50 USPQ2d 1930, 1934 (1999). Findings of fact underlying the obviousness rejection, upon review by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, must be supported by substantial evidence within the record. See In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1775 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In addition, in order for meaningful appellate review to occur, the examiner must present a full and reasoned explanation of the rejection. See, e.g., In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Baravetto teaches that the shampoo compositions contain an insoluble hair component, wherein the component comprises a first conditioning agent having a mean particle size less than 2 microns, and a second conditioning agent having a mean particle size greater than about 5 microns. Id. at col. 11, lines 26-34. With respect to the particle sizes, Baravetto specifically teaches: The first non-volatile conditioning agent in the present invention (the smaller particles) have a mean particle size below about 2 microns, preferably below about 1 micron, more preferably below about 0.5 microns, even more preferably below about 0.3 microns, even more preferably below about 0.15 microns, and most preferably below about 0.05 microns, and preferably greater than about 0.01 microns. The second non-volatile conditioning agent in the present invention (the larger particles) have a mean particle size range greater than about 5 microns, preferably from about 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007