Ex Parte FUKUDA et al - Page 2


                Appeal No.  2002-1557                                                 Page 2                  
                Application No. 09/305,746                                                                    

                      6.           A method for removing sebum selectively from the skin of a                 
                                   made-up face without removing make-up, which comprises                     
                                   applying a liquid composition to the skin by a technique                   
                                   other than spraying, followed by holding a water absorptive                
                                   or oil absorptive material against the skin without wiping                 
                                   such that sebum and said liquid composition are selectively                
                                   removed from the made up face.                                             
                      The examiner relies upon the following reference:                                       
                Shimada et al. (Shimada)              5,462,691           Oct. 31, 1995                       
                      Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of             
                an enabling disclosure.  Claims 2-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                    
                second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and               
                claim the subject matter that appellants regard as the invention.  Finally, claims            
                2-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the                 
                teachings of Shimada.  After careful review of the record and consideration of                
                the issues before us, we find that on this record, we must reverse all of the                 
                rejections before us.                                                                         
                                                DISCUSSION                                                    
                1.    Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph                                        
                      The entire rejection, as it is set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, is set forth         
                below.                                                                                        
                             Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph,                           
                      because the specification, whole [sic] [while] being enabling for                       
                      liquid compositions selected from those disclosed in Examples 2-7                       
                      (see page 11, Table 1), does not reasonably provide enablement                          
                      for all possible liquids.  The specification does not enable any                        









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007