Appeal No. 2003-0615
Application No. 09/319,165
The appellants argue that only 0.59% of the possible
combinations of Yamahatsu’s oxidation dyes produce the
appellants’ claimed invention and, because of this low
probability, there is no suggestion in Yamahatsu to select one of
these combinations (brief, pages 5-10). Regarding Yamahatsu’s
examples in which para-phenylenediamine and para-aminophenol
oxidation dyes (the appellants’s first and second oxidation
bases) are used in combination, the appellants argue that a third
oxidation dye other than Yamahatsu’s 2-methyl-5-N-($-
hydroxyethyl)aminophenol is used in these examples and,
therefore, Yamahatsu would have suggested using a para-
phenylenediamine and a para-aminophenol in combination with a dye
other than 2-methyl-5-N-($-hydroxyethyl)-aminophenol (brief,
page 8). The appellants do not point out any oxidation dye
combination other than those in the examples which the appellants
consider to have been fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art by Yamahatsu. Thus, the appellants apparently
consider Yamahatsu’s suggested oxidation dye combinations to be
only those in the examples.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007