Appeal No. 2002-1559 Page 4
Application No. 09/282,708
DISCUSSION
1. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Brown
Claims 1-3, 10 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brown.
We initially note that appellants assert that claims 10 and 14 do not stand
or fall with composition claims 1-3. See Appeal Brief, page 11. Appellants do
not, however, separately argue the patentability of those claims, so we focus our
analysis on claim 1. See 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7).
According to the rejection, Brown teaches “liquid cosmetic compositions,
including hair treatment compositions, comprising gelling polysaccharides (e.g.
agar, carrageenan, gellan).” Examiner’s Answer, page 3. The rejection notes
that the compositions of Brown may “also comprise other components and may
contain two or more phases,” and that Brown specifically teaches that their
compositions may be used as hair gels. See id. at 4.
We recognize that in order for a prior art reference to serve as an
anticipatory reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is our determination that Brown
teaches a composition meeting all of the requirements of claim 1.
Claim 1 is drawn to a composition comprising a first phase comprising at
least one naturally derived polymer which is capable of forming a reversible gel,
which polymer is present in the composition as a shear gel having a multiplicity
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007