Appeal No. 2003-1308
Application No. 09/287,176
Cotteret teaches that direct dyes, in general, may be added to
the oxidation dye compositions comprising the presently claimed
cationic or amphoteric substantive polymers, and Mockli also
teaches that appellant's cationic direct dyes may be formulated
with cationic conditioning polymers, we are satisfied that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the
cationic direct dyes of Mockli would be compatible in the dye
compositions of Cotteret.
Appellant contends that "Cotteret provides motivation only
to use a substantive amphoteric or cationic polymer with an
oxidation dye, not with a direct dye" (page 11 of principal
brief, first paragraph). However, since Cotteret expressly
teaches the addition of direct dyes to the dye composition, we
agree with the examiner that appellant's argument is without
merit. Mockli provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill
in the art following the teachings of Cotteret to select the
specific direct dyes used by appellant.
We are also not persuaded by appellant's argument that
"Mockli does not teach or suggest using its direct dyes in an
oxidative composition" (id., second paragraph), since Mockli
discusses certain reservations and toxicological risks associated
with using oxidation compositions. It is Cotteret, not Mockli,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007