Appeal No. 2003-0635
Application No. 09/196,818
Appellants submit at page 11 of the Brief that "[c]laims 1,
10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 stand or fall by themselves," and
that "[c]laims 2-9, 12-15 and 19 stand or fall by themselves."
Accordingly, the appealed claims grouped with claim 1 stand or
fall together with claim 1, whereas the claims grouped with
claim 2 stand or fall together with claim 2.
At the outset, we note that appellants do not contest the
examiner's rejections under obviousness-type double patenting.
Rather, appellants state that they "stand ready to file a
Terminal Disclaimer to overcome these double patenting
rejections" (page 10 of Brief, last sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner with respect to the
§ 102/§ 103 rejection. In so doing, we concur with the examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of
the applied Houiellebecq reference. Accordingly, to the extent
the examiner's rejection is based on § 103, we will sustain it
for essentially those reasons expressed by the Answer.
There is no dispute that Houiellebecq, like appellants,
discloses a composition for treating hair comprising water, an
amino functionalized silicone and a hydroxyl functionalized
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007