Appeal No. 2004-0369 Page 6
Application No. 09/822,704
the Laponite microparticles in the composition of Dupuis for the known gelling and thickening
properties of these microparticles. The prior art provides evidence that those of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to formulate a composition containing non-spherical
microparticles of the claimed particle size as well as water-soluble or water-swellable polymer
and aqueous carrier as required by claim 1.
Claim 1 further requires that the combination of the polymer and the microparticles
results in a film-forming network. Dupuis obtains a thick, non-pasty gel that spreads very well on
the hair and has good fixing power (Dupuis, col. 6, ll. 42-44). We find that such an easily spread
gel of Dupuis containing Laponite microparticles would result in a film-forming network as
claimed.
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the references (Brief, p. 5-6).
But Appellants’ arguments ignore the broader aspects of the teachings of the references. It is
well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Dupuis suggests
formulating leave-in styling compositions with gelling polymers and aqueous carrier. Dupuis
also suggests adding standard cosmetic gelling and thickening agents. Hinks provides evidence
that those of ordinary skill in the art used Laponite products as gelling and thickening agents in
cosmetics. There is a suggestion to make the combination.
Appellants also argue that the references do not teach or suggest all the claim limitations:
Namely, that the combination of prior art does not teach or suggest “a combination comprising
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007