Appeal No. 2002-1559 Page 2
Application No. 09/282,708
(ii) a second phase suspended therein.
10. A method for treating hair which comprises contacting said hair with an
effective amount of a composition according to claim 1.
The examiner relies upon the following references:
Vermeer 5,641,480 Jun. 24, 1997
Brown et al. (Brown) EP 0 355 908 Dec. 12, 1996
Claims 1-3, 10 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brown. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being rendered obvious by Brown. Claims 4, 5 and 9 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Brown and
Vermeer. Finally, claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Brown, Hawley and Vermeer. After careful
review of the record and consideration of the issues before us, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-14, but reverse the rejection of claims 6 and 71
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brown.
BACKGROUND
According to the specification, suspending agents are commonly used in
hair treatment compositions to improve stability against phase separation and
1 We note appellants’ statement that claim 7 stands or falls with claims 1-5. See
Appeal Brief, page 11. Claim 7, however, was subject to a separate rejection
than claims 1-3 and 4-5, and thus is treated with respect to the rejection with
which it was included.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007