Appeal No. 2003-0862
Application No. 09/518,032
Moreover, appellants are not claiming a combination of three specific
compounds. Appellants claim a hair care treatment composition including three classes
or categories of compounds, which also encompass a vast number of compounds,
including those described in Dowell.
In our view, appellants have not provided sufficient argument or evidence to
rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 1 and 8
as representative of the claims before us in view of Dowell is affirmed.
Combination of Murray and Dowell
We note, as did the examiner (Answer, page 9) that appellants have not
responded to the rejection of the claims based on the combination of Murray and
Dowell. We summarily affirm this rejection, in the absence of any argument by
appellants.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
The appellants have not responded to the examiner’s rejection of the claims for
obviousness-type double patenting in a substantive manner. Appellants have indicated
in the Brief, page 10, a willingness to file a terminal disclaimer to respond to this
rejection once allowable subject matter is indicated in the application.
In the absence of any rebuttal argument to the rejection of the claims for
obviousness-type double patenting, the rejection is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007