Appeal No. 2003-0862
Application No. 09/518,032
these sets of facts are before us.
We do not find the factual scenario present in Baird to be before us here. In the
present case Murray clearly discloses a preference for dissolving a highly viscous
silicone, such as a silicone gum, in a volatile silicone solvent. Murray, column 5.
Murray also indicates that amino functional silicones are also appropriate for use
specifically as silicone conditioning agents. Murray, column 4. Thus, Murray indicates
the claimed components and combinations are preferred, and does not, as in Baird,
lead away from selecting these preferences.
Furthermore, in the present case, appellants are not claiming a composition
limited to a combination of three specific compounds. Appellants claim a hair care
treatment composition broadly, including three generic groups of compounds, each
generic group also encompassing a vast number of compounds. Thus, we are not
persuaded by appellants’ reliance on Baird or its applicability to the facts of the present
case.
Dowell
With respect to Dowell, the examiner argues that Dowell evidences a hair
shampoo including a surfactant, a water-insoluble hair treating compound, a
suspending agent and a carrier. Answer, page 6. Dowell discloses that the water-
insoluble hair treating compound can be a silicone conditioning agent made of a
mixture of low molecular weight dimethylpolysiloxane and a high molecular weight
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007