Appeal No. 2003-0615
Application No. 09/319,165
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claims 25-49 and 51-57 over Yamahatsu in view of Andrillon, and
claims 25-65 over Andrillon in view of Tsujino.2,3
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall together
as to each ground of rejection (brief, page 4). We therefore
limit our discussion to one claim to which each rejection
applies, i.e., claim 25. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566
n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Rejection over Yamahatsu in view of Andrillon
Yamahatsu discloses a one-pack oxidation hair dye
2 A provisional rejection of claims 25-65 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 32-74 of copending application no. 09/319,204 is
withdrawn in the examiner’s answer (page 3) due to the entry of a
terminal disclaimer.
3 The examiner relies (answer, pages 5-6) upon a reference
(book chapters) by Charles Zviak which was provided by the
appellants during prosecution (request for reconsideration filed
July 6, 2001, paper no. 17). Because this reference is not
included in the statement of the rejection, it is not properly
before us. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ
406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we have not considered
this reference in reaching our decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007