Appeal No. 2003-1308
Application No. 09/287,176
the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of all the
appealed claims over Cotteret in view of Mockli. There is no
dispute that Cotteret, like appellant, teaches a composition for
dyeing keratin fibers comprising cationic or amphoteric
substantive polymers within the scope of the appealed claims and
direct dyes. Cotteret does not teach the specific cationic
direct dyes embraced by the appealed claims. However, there is
also no dispute that Mockli teaches compositions for dyeing
keratin fibers comprising the presently claimed cationic direct
dyes, and teaches that such cationic direct dyes
can be used to achieve in a very simple way and under
gentle conditions very deep dyeings having excellent
light, shampooing and crock fastness properties. Owing
to their extremely clean shades, they also extend the
range of possible mixed shades considerably, especially
in the direction of the increasingly important
brilliant fashion colours.
(Paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2). Accordingly, based on the
collective teachings of Cotteret and Mockli, we find no error in
the examiner's reasoning that it would have been prima facie
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
cationic direct dyes of Mockli for use in the dyeing compositions
of Cotteret for the advantages described in Mockli. Since
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007