Appeal No. 2002-1559 Page 12
Application No. 09/282,708
As set forth above, we find that Brown does teach a hair care
composition. Therefore, Brown provides the necessary teaching for adding
ingredients to the gel composition that are routinely used in hair care
compositions, such as those taught by Vermeer.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combined teachings of Brown and Vermeer is affirmed.
4 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brown, Hawley and Vermeer
Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Brown, Hawley and Vermeer.
Brown is relied upon as above, and for also teaching that “nonionic,
anionic or cationic emulsifiers can be used in their compositions.” Examiner’s
Answer, page 6. Hawley is relied upon for teaching that “emulsifiers are
surfactants by definition.” Id. The Examiner’s Answer acknowledges that
“Brown [ ] do[es] not specifically teach the anionic surfactants of Claims 11-13.”
Id.
Vermeer is relied upon for teaching that the claimed anionic surfactants
are commonly used in hair care compositions. The Examiner’s Answer
concludes:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made
to employ the anionic surfactants or Vermeer for the hair care
compositions of Brown [ ] for their art-recognized purpose.
Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007