Appeal No. 2002-1559 Page 13 Application No. 09/282,708 Appellants argue that Hawley “comes no closer to suggesting the claimed hair treatment compositions,” and that the rejection should be withdrawn for the same reasons already discussed. Appellant’s arguments are not found to be convincing for the reasons given above with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 9, 10, 12 and 14. Therefore, the rejection is affirmed. AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART Toni R. Scheiner ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT Demetra J. Mills ) Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) ) INTERFERENCES ) Lora M. Green ) Administrative Patent Judge ) LG/dym Matthew Boxer Unilever Patent Department 45 River Road Edgewater, NJ 07020Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Last modified: November 3, 2007