Appeal No. 2002-1557 Page 6
Application No. 09/305,746
3. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
According to the rejection, Shimada teaches a cleansing agent that is
capable of both makeup removal and bare skin cleansing to clean dirt and
sebum off of the skin. While the rejection notes that Shimada does not
“specifically state” that a water or oil absorptive material is used to remove the
sebum with the liquid composition, it concludes that:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to remove the sebum and/or makeup
using an absorptive material because Shimada [ ] disclose[s] that
their liquid composition may be rinsed off to remove dirt and
makeup from the skin; however, a skilled practitioner would
recognize that it is possible for some of the sebum and makeup to
remain on the skin. Also, it should be noted from Examples 1-9 of
Shimada [ ] that not all of the liquid compositions were removed
from the subjects with rinsing; thus, it is obvious to use some other
method to remove the remaining liquid.
Examiner’s Answer, page 4.
Appellants argue that Shimada fails to teach or suggest the selective
removal of sebum, but, in fact teach only the complete removal of makeup, dirt
and sebum. The claimed method, appellants argue, is drawn to the selective
removal of sebum from the skin without removing makeup. 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
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). Obviousness is determined in
view of the sum of all of the relevant teachings in the art, not isolated teachings
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007