Appeal No. 2003-1308
Application No. 09/287,176
and that show good resistance to the various attacking
factors to the hair, by combining at least one specific
cationic or amphoteric substantive polymer with at
least one cationic direct dye known in the art and of
formulae respectively defined below (page 2 of
specification, penultimate paragraph).
Appealed claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cotteret in view of Mockli. Claims 1-23,
32-36 and 41-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kao in view of Mockli.1
Appellant submits at page 4 of the principal brief that,
with respect to the rejection over Cotteret in view of Mockli,
claims 1-42 stand or fall together, and with respect to the
rejection over Kao in view of Mockli, claims 1-23, 32-36 and
41-42 stand or fall together. Consequently, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and, accordingly, we
will limit our review to the examiner's rejections of claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed appellant's arguments for
patentability. We are in complete agreement with the examiner,
however, 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 prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain
1 The examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection
of the appealed claims has been withdrawn in view of appellant's
submission of a terminal disclaimer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007