Appeal No. 2003-0878
Application No. 09/575,903
As discussed, supra, it is our opinion that the combination
of Kumar in view of Matyjaszewski does suggest making
polysiloxane polymers through the use of a transitional metal
catalyst. Appellants do not dispute that Tsubakihara teach the
desirability of using a block copolymer in hair cosmetics.
Therefore, we find no error in the examiner’s rejection of claim
5. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 5. As set
forth above, claim 6 falls together with claim 5.
III. Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over of Kumar in view of Matyjaszewski
is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious of Kumar in view of Matyjaszewski and Tsubakihara
is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007