Appeal No. 2002-1557 Page 8
Application No. 09/305,746
of performing, in a one-stage process, both make-up removal and bare skin
cleansing to clear off dirt and sebum from the skin.” Shimada, col. 1, lines 53-56
(emphasis added). There is no teachings, suggestions or motivations in
Shimada for a method of removing sebum from the skin without the removal of
makeup—Shimada in fact teaches away from the claimed invention by teaching
that the object of the invention is to remove makeup, sebum and dirt from the
face.
The examiner asserts that comparative examples 7 and 8 of Shimada did
not result in the removal of makeup, and that while “Shimada [ ] do[es] not
specifically state that their method selectively removes make-up, their examples
indicate that depending upon the composition used make-up [sic?] [sebum] is
selectively removed from the skin.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5 (emphasis in
original). The examiner, however, is misinterpreting comparative examples 7
and 8. Shimada states that “both the make-up removal effect and bare skin
cleansing effect were poor.” Shimada, col. 7, lines 40-41. Thus, neither makeup
nor sebum was effectively removed from the skin, and the examples cited by the
examiner do not support the examiner’s assertion that Shimada discloses
selective removal of sebum from the skin.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007